The importance of rapid failure for developers, and the strategies to achieve it | GI Sprint

End development early if a game isn’t enjoyable or practical.

This is the principle advocated by Dominique Gawlowski of Free Lives, Tony Gowland of Ant Workshop, and Rami Ismail, an independent game developer and consultant. They have come together to discuss their insights on reducing the expenses associated with game development as part of the new GI Sprint series, which includes various video content, podcasts, and articles aimed at creating games more efficiently.

During a frank conversation about turning game ideas into reality and recognizing when to abandon them, the trio highlighted that although it might be easier to start making games now, the escalating costs, intense competition, and numerous obstacles make it more challenging than ever.

Given the rising number of layoffs and the closure of numerous studios, it is critically important to avoid wasting resources on projects that are not financially viable. Here's a guide on how to fail early and learn from each shortcoming.

Watch the complete podcast below, download it here, or find it on your preferred podcast platform.

Watch on YouTube

Cease work promptly if it isn’t effective – don't delay

According to Gawlowski, the optimal time to stop working on a game is "as soon as possible."

For beginners, relying on intuition can be challenging, but the consensus is clear: establish a strict timeline—perhaps a month for prototyping—after which a decision should be made about whether to proceed or discontinue.

Ismail remarks, "If it isn't enjoyable in five minutes, we move to the next idea. This method remains my approach. In my game development process, if we can't make it exciting within a week or two weeks, it's a sign to shift our focus."

Gowland concurs: "A strict deadline is crucial. Continuous iteration or adding new elements isn't viable."

"From the beginning, we aim to create something feasible," he adds. "If no publishers show interest, spending extensive time and resources is not an option. Without additional funds, the project must end."

Is it fun both to play and to develop?

Identifying whether a game works can be subjective, but Ismail believes fun is the main criterion.

"I look for two things," he notes. "First, do users enjoy it? Their excitement about the game's potential is a key indicator, more intuitive than scientific.

"Second, is the development process enjoyable? Considering a typical game takes two to three years, ensuring that it remains fun to work on is essential."

Avoid prioritizing non-essential features over core elements

Ismail recommends concentrating on fundamental aspects vital to the game's existence, advising against wasting time on details that can be addressed later.

"Newcomers often fixate on grand visions, like fighting dragons, and spend time on non-core elements like story lore, only to find out later that the concept itself might not work," he says.

Instead, the focus should be on making the basic interactions enjoyable and building from there.

"If hitting a rectangle isn’t fun, the dragon fight won't be fun either. Prioritize elements that prove the interaction’s enjoyment."

Eschew time-consuming features that fail to work for your game

Prototyping is a practical approach to determining what works. It helps assess both the team's capabilities and the concept's viability.

"Not every prototype needs to encompass the whole game. Focus on features and adjust or discard them based on their effectiveness," Gowland states.

Ismail emphasizes the necessity of purposeful features.

"As development progresses, fixing issues becomes costlier. Avoid committing to features prematurely, as reversing course can be difficult."

"Certainly, there are occasions when things adjust at the very last moment. It's the nature of game development – there's no perfect method. When this happens, triage becomes critical... but I think that's a topic for another Sprint episode!"

Verify your idea's value before dedicating time and resources

Even if your concept is enjoyable to create and filled with features players will love, it's crucial to avoid investing in projects that won't justify the time and financial efforts.

"Developing a game typically takes two to three years," Gawlowski explains, revealing that Free Lives has shelved early prototypes after 20,000 external downloads because they were not cost-effective or practical to fully develop. "You must be certain this is something worth your time."

"The top 10% of games on Steam generate most of the revenue. The remaining 90% often result in studios shutting down or incurring significant losses, to the point where they might never develop games again. To be in that profitable top 10%, you need to be sure your ideas are exceptional. There's no room to cling to a concept that likely isn't viable."

"You'll be surprised how difficult it is for some to let go of a poor idea. Many are so attached to their concepts that they refuse to move on, often to their own disadvantage," says Gawlowski.

She compares game development to the music industry, where she began her career, highlighting how accessible software enables more people to create playable games, thereby increasing competition.

"There's still a niche for beautifully crafted games to perform well," she notes. "Although they might not generate as much revenue as massive titles like Call of Duty, they can do adequately, potentially funding the next project and allowing creators to sustain their businesses and continue developing quality games."

"You'll be surprised how difficult it is for some to let go of a poor idea. Many are so attached to their concepts" Dominique Gawlowski

Gowland emphasizes a strategy of making smaller, less risky investments instead of committing entirely to one expensive project.

He cites Zeekerss' Lethal Company as an example of a game that found success by offering something unique without requiring a massive budget.

"Its success stems from its originality," he elaborates. "It didn't need the massive budget of games like Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed."

"Providing something fresh and appealing doesn't necessarily require a multi-million-dollar investment. Personally, I think more developers should explore a variety of smaller projects to see what resonates."

"Our previous game, Dungeon Golf, took a couple of years to develop, but it completely failed upon release. Such an approach is not sustainable for us," admits Gowland.

Focus on smaller projects and understand your niche

Setting practical expectations is key to failing quickly, especially if overpromising leads to underdelivering.

Ismail reflects on how even seasoned industry professionals can fail, citing senior developers who left AAA studios only to falter on their own.

"Small-scale projects are the right approach now, and it doesn't imply they are short in playtime," he clarifies. "It means developing games that are easier to manage and prototype quickly."

"Successful games often have small, elegant systems at their core. These can be prototyped quickly and, once validated, developed further."

"If you wish to embark on a complex project and have the means to self-fund or secure a publisher? Go for it. There's less competition in that challenging space. But for the average indie developer, the focus should be on easier-to-manage projects. Platforms like Itch.io provide immediate feedback and direction," adds Ismail.

"Every correct decision is not a guarantee of success, merely a chance at it. You flip the coin at the end." Rami Ismail

Gowland underlines the necessity of understanding your niche: "The recent surge in survival games exemplifies this. Key gameplay elements are essential, with additional content, like monsters and abilities, being layered on top."

"Developing smaller projects helps reduce costs, meaning you don't need as large an audience to be successful."

"For example, if you create a survival game set on a farm with a quirky character, reaching 20,000 fans is much more realistic compared to the massive sales needed for a title like Call of Duty to be profitable."

Success isn't guaranteed, even with the best efforts

Despite all the strategies and advice provided, there's no surefire path to success.

Indeed, the only certainty is that you will face failure. How you respond and learn from it is crucial.

"Failing quickly isn't just a good idea; it's essential for a small studio," Gawlowski asserts.

Even with perfect execution, success is never assured.

"As entrepreneurs, we embrace risk," Ismail concludes. "Even with the best practices – testing on Itch.io, gaining a publisher, efficient development – you're merely accruing opportunities, not guarantees. At the end, you flip the coins. If enough land favorably, you might succeed. Each right decision increases your chances, but it's still a coin flip at the end."