this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2025
206 points (97.2% liked)
PC Gaming
13123 readers
618 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Also and I hate to say it, a lot of indie titles are shit.
Like yes I cant do it, yes its a big achievement for an amateur, massive respect for having a go but... Bruh this just isnt very good.
The CEO's take here is actually pretty on-point. The article title over-simplifies, a bit.
The problem he points out is that a "failed" game that doesn't sell well, or even sells moderately, is still a valuable game, and experience for the developer(s), but it also often means financial ruin for the studio. In his opinion, it's that such studios aren't recognizing when they're releasing into an over-crowded genre, and need to adjust their budget expectations down.
Cause yeah, people SHOULD be able to make shit little games, without having to re-tool their entire career if it doesn't do terribly well.
Not just a lot of indies, a lot of games in general. The only difference between a shitty indie game and a shitty big game is the marketing money that makes you belive the game is good even though it's shit.