It takes a lot to be successful in the game industry. There are a lot of things to worry about when writing a game. Not only does the game itself have to be a good product (and I find many today aren't), it has to be distributed well. If a game is a good game, but not distributed correctly, it won't sell enough copies to be profitable, and if it just isn't a good game, it (hopefully) won't sell either.
It takes a lot just to make a game in the first place: you first have to have an initial game idea, and then you have to spend lots of time coding it, drawing the graphics, writing the music and doing the sound effects.
It takes a few years of hard work at least, to make it in the games industry. I find a lot of people today who want to get into the game industry don't know what it takes. It's not all fun and games (no pun intended). It takes a lot of perseverence, talent, patience, and a little bit of luck to make it in the games industry. Not everybody can be a game developer, because if you don't have these traits, you can't be.
You can't get discouraged - sometimes being successful means starting over after a few years of hard work. Game development is a big risk, and the rewards of success can be good, but most underestimate the "risk", and don't use the right strategies to lessen that risk. If more people knew what it took, I don't think we'd have so many teenagers thinking that working in the game industry is all fun. I believe that most new game companies fail because they don't have what the pesrseverence and the courage for taking risks it takes to succeed, as well as possibly because they're being too ambitious at first and trying to make games they are incapable of making, or making games for the money instead of the fun (this doesn't mean that you can't try to make a little profit off your game, just try to concentrate on the "fun" part the most.) Don't try to make Quake if you don't like FPSes - it'll only turn out to be a bad game. I also find that too many game developers don't thoroughly plan out their games - it's worth it in the long run, and gives you a better time estimate of the project. It pays to plan ahead.
There are some game companies that succeed, but many, many more that fail, for these reasons and more. So, don't make a game and expect to get rich off of it right away - you'll only fail. If you do everything right, you just might win out in the end. I've seen everything in this article before, so it's not news to me. The game industry can certainly be miserable, but it can still also be fun if you do it right. (Not many people in the game industry today do.)
To be a successful game developer, you really have to make the most of yourself.
Re:Not all fun and games for free software
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 1
It depends on what the bill defines as "reverse engineering" - whether it's only about disassembilng program code, or other aspects (e.g. ideas) as well. When writing a piece of software, you often take some ideas from other pieces of software, or think through how the logic works in other pieces of software, and apply it to your own. Could this be illegal under UCITA? Most software uses some ideas from other software.
However, if companies like M$ start suing the pants off of consumers/small businesses or disabling their software because they violated the EULA, everybody will switch to OSS in a heartbeat. Have you ever read the terms in a M$-sytle proprietary license? They're draconian. Almost all proprietary licenses prohibit reverse-engineering (most have a clause that goes something like "You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the software...") Most also disclaim the software vendor's responsibility if it doesn't work. (But they reserve the right to sue your pants off if you do something they don't like.) And you have to open the box to read them (this is after you've purchaced the software). For this reason, I never considered software licenses true contracts (where both parties negotiate before they sign the contract.) It's not that hard to violate a typical EULA. And I'm pretty sure that most users don't read these to discover all the draconian terms they're agreeing to, they just click "I Agree". Of course, it's another reason to switch to OSS, but a lot of businesses (and comsumers) are still running on proprietary software, and most of them probably don't know about this. And what if this law makes reverse engineering illegal as such that OSS develpoment becomes illegal? The state governments probably own lots of proprietary software licenses, so what would they think if they voted this into law, and had software vendors disable all of their software? Because the process to shut down somebody's software doesn't require a court order, software vendors could shut down somebody's software whenever they please (and for whatever reason).
Slowly but surely, it seems our freedoms are being taken away... If anything, we need to get strict on the big corporations, not on endusers or small businesses.
Slashdot Mirror
It takes a lot to be successful in the game industry. There are a lot of things to worry about when writing a game. Not only does the game itself have to be a good product (and I find many today aren't), it has to be distributed well. If a game is a good game, but not distributed correctly, it won't sell enough copies to be profitable, and if it just isn't a good game, it (hopefully) won't sell either.
It takes a lot just to make a game in the first place: you first have to have an initial game idea, and then you have to spend lots of time coding it, drawing the graphics, writing the music and doing the sound effects.
It takes a few years of hard work at least, to make it in the games industry. I find a lot of people today who want to get into the game industry don't know what it takes. It's not all fun and games (no pun intended). It takes a lot of perseverence, talent, patience, and a little bit of luck to make it in the games industry. Not everybody can be a game developer, because if you don't have these traits, you can't be.
You can't get discouraged - sometimes being successful means starting over after a few years of hard work. Game development is a big risk, and the rewards of success can be good, but most underestimate the "risk", and don't use the right strategies to lessen that risk. If more people knew what it took, I don't think we'd have so many teenagers thinking that working in the game industry is all fun. I believe that most new game companies fail because they don't have what the pesrseverence and the courage for taking risks it takes to succeed, as well as possibly because they're being too ambitious at first and trying to make games they are incapable of making, or making games for the money instead of the fun (this doesn't mean that you can't try to make a little profit off your game, just try to concentrate on the "fun" part the most.) Don't try to make Quake if you don't like FPSes - it'll only turn out to be a bad game. I also find that too many game developers don't thoroughly plan out their games - it's worth it in the long run, and gives you a better time estimate of the project. It pays to plan ahead.
There are some game companies that succeed, but many, many more that fail, for these reasons and more. So, don't make a game and expect to get rich off of it right away - you'll only fail. If you do everything right, you just might win out in the end. I've seen everything in this article before, so it's not news to me. The game industry can certainly be miserable, but it can still also be fun if you do it right. (Not many people in the game industry today do.)
To be a successful game developer, you really have to make the most of yourself.
It depends on what the bill defines as "reverse engineering" - whether it's only about disassembilng program code, or other aspects (e.g. ideas) as well. When writing a piece of software, you often take some ideas from other pieces of software, or think through how the logic works in other pieces of software, and apply it to your own. Could this be illegal under UCITA? Most software uses some ideas from other software.
However, if companies like M$ start suing the pants off of consumers/small businesses or disabling their software because they violated the EULA, everybody will switch to OSS in a heartbeat. Have you ever read the terms in a M$-sytle proprietary license? They're draconian. Almost all proprietary licenses prohibit reverse-engineering (most have a clause that goes something like "You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the software...") Most also disclaim the software vendor's responsibility if it doesn't work. (But they reserve the right to sue your pants off if you do something they don't like.) And you have to open the box to read them (this is after you've purchaced the software). For this reason, I never considered software licenses true contracts (where both parties negotiate before they sign the contract.) It's not that hard to violate a typical EULA. And I'm pretty sure that most users don't read these to discover all the draconian terms they're agreeing to, they just click "I Agree". Of course, it's another reason to switch to OSS, but a lot of businesses (and comsumers) are still running on proprietary software, and most of them probably don't know about this. And what if this law makes reverse engineering illegal as such that OSS develpoment becomes illegal? The state governments probably own lots of proprietary software licenses, so what would they think if they voted this into law, and had software vendors disable all of their software? Because the process to shut down somebody's software doesn't require a court order, software vendors could shut down somebody's software whenever they please (and for whatever reason).
Slowly but surely, it seems our freedoms are being taken away... If anything, we need to get strict on the big corporations, not on endusers or small businesses.
ALincoln.