8 replies to this topic

[Trekker_1138]

The reason why I ask is because I know that there are people with great ideas but no programming skills, and I realize that a programmer isn't usually going to work for free, even if they could share in the profits of the game (assuming there are any profits).

I do have a few ideas. One being a moon landing simulation. Where you have to train for the mission by playing moon simulation games/tasks. Like firing different rocket thrusters on the craft to steer through asteroids, and doing the same to adjust your trajectory/flight path to the moon, and then carefully landing on the moon. It'd be an Apollo moon mission simulation -- not just a Lunar Lander clone. If you make it through the sims, you could then try a moon shot. There could be a simple spacecraft instrument panel at the bottom, where you have to push some buttons to keep various variables within certain limits to maintain craft control and life support systems.

What would the average cost be? And would that cost go down if the non-programmer person part of the duo gave half the profits to the programmer and also fully paid the cost of making the cartridges, covered the costs of creating the logos and packaging materials, and did the marketing? Meaning the programmer may make some money out of the project without having to pay out any money. I am not wealthy by any stretch but producing a game is one of my goals in life. It'd be a ton of fun and a blast. And I don't really care about which classic platform -- could be Atari, Intelligent Television, or ColecoVision.

Edited by gps_trekker, Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:27 PM.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

IMO 90% of the work is the done by the programmer. A good game usually costs hundreds of coding hours. And maybe 100 or 200 are sold, with $5 royalties. Now you can do your math.

Also, most (if not all) Atari 2600 programmers are definitely not up to the money. Even a bad payed jobs pays of much better. And they have more ideas than they will ever be able to finish, so you would have to pay a LOT of money to motivate them doing your idea. Except when it is really, really brilliant maybe (99% are not).

Edited by Thomas Jentzsch, Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:10 AM.

[Trekker_1138]

Thomas Jentzsch, on Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:10 AM, said:

IMO 90% of the work is the done by the programmer. A good game usually costs hundreds of coding hours. And maybe 100 or 200 are sold, with $5 royalties. Now you can do your math.

Also, most (if not all) Atari 2600 programmers are definitely not up to the money. Even a bad payed jobs pays of much better. And they have more ideas than they will ever be able to finish, so you would have to pay a LOT of money to motivate them doing your idea. Except when it is really, really brilliant maybe (99% are not).

Wow, there goes that idea, sounds expensive. I was just curious as to the cost.

[Nathan Strum]

Thomas Jentzsch, on Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:10 AM, said:

IMO 90% of the work is the done by the programmer.

I'd put that number at closer to 99%. Everyone has ideas. Few can actually make them work.

(And no... I'm not a programmer.)

Edited by Nathan Strum, Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:45 AM.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Nathan Strum, on Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:45 AM, said:

Thomas Jentzsch, on Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:10 AM, said:

IMO 90% of the work is the done by the programmer.

I'd put that number at closer to 99%. Everyone has ideas. Few can actually make them work.

(And no... I'm not a programmer.)

You forgot your artwork.

And then there are:
- input from play testers
- advertising the game
- setting up the AA store
- cart production
...

[Random Terrain]

You don't need to do all of that hard work. Just take 10 minutes and hack the graphics of an existing game. The money will roll in!

[Nathan Strum]

Thomas Jentzsch, on Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:52 AM, said:

You forgot your artwork.

I was counting my artwork. That's a miniscule amount of effort, compared to programming. (Although a few projects have tended to drag on longer than they should have. )

Thomas Jentzsch, on Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:52 AM, said:

And then there are:
- input from play testers
- advertising the game
- setting up the AA store
- cart production
...

True. Testing is especially time-consuming.

Edited by Nathan Strum, Sun Nov 21, 2010 8:51 PM.

[raindog]

Random Terrain, on Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:21 AM, said:

You don't need to do all of that hard work. Just take 10 minutes and hack the graphics of an existing game. The money will roll in!

This was once depressingly close to the truth, though I think that window of opportunity has long been closed.

It was more than a graphics hack, but my Space Invaders hack involved no disassembly (except what little I did in my head) and still probably sold more copies than some more deserving homebrews. Thankfully, now there's Space Instigators, which itself is a more deserving homebrew.

In any case, what I made from that (and my other, more involved hack, and my demo, before the three of them were made obsolete) was enough to give me a nice discount on other people's homebrew games, perhaps two or three hours worth of my time at the rates I charge professionally for coding. It took me more than that just to find the locations to change the colors the first time around. No one is doing this for the money, or if they are, they're a bit deluded.

[theloon]

A better idea would be to sponsor a homebrew contest. Give it a theme like "moon landing" so people will have some leeway. Someone's bound to come up with a game you'd like.

Neotokeo2001 needed some new games for celebs to sign at a horror convention. He also wanted to support the Atari homebrew scene. What he did was post an offer to homebrew developers to have their game autographed and sent to them. That's a pretty big incentive!

So, there are alternatives to paying a full time developer. Contests and incentives can also enliven the scene. Plus, every new game reaffirms the 2600 never died - the shag carpeting just smells that way.

Edited by theloon, Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:37 AM.