HackerTube English?
软件边界与变化 →

这一款卖完以后,工作室还有时间做下一款吗?

旧作收入何时到账,谁为下一部作品找到玩家,帮手是否真的腾出了时间?几位独立开发者的账本和发行经历,让持续做作品所需的时间具体起来。

本文的问题 · 6
  1. 营业额看起来不错,为什么还会退票?
  2. 完成游戏之后,还有哪段工作没算进来?
  3. 一个新帮手能腾出几小时?
  4. 谁付改善的成本,又由谁决定下一笔支出?
  5. 录一次能播很多次,谁承担判断错误的代价?
  6. 下一轮工作缺的是收入,还是能接住新客户的人?

营业额看起来不错,为什么还会退票?

独立开发者报告有游戏过了五到十年才挣钱。如果旧作一直在卖,遇到一款新作失利,收入还有别的来源。Spiderweb 的账本补上时间轴的另一边,团队的工资和发行开销今天就要付,连续两款表现欠佳就足以吃紧。拿到“这款游戏最后赚了多少钱”时,先画按月的收支图。累计赚到的钱和下个月还能做几周开发,回答的是两个不同的问题。

原文与时间戳 · 2
games that have only made money after like five or 10 years
How to Survive in Gamedev for Eleven Years Without a Hit · ▶ 42:03–42:07
this seems like a pretty healthy number. But this means we're bouncing checks
Failing to Fail: The Spiderweb Software Way · ▶ 39:15–39:19

完成游戏之后,还有哪段工作没算进来?

《反室》的开发者把竞赛奖金投入制作。临近发售,同行又劝他另留一段时间做预告片、定价和宣传。Gage 遇到了再下一步的问题,玩家喜欢过他的好几部作品,居然还认不出背后是同一人。给下一部作品估工作量时,别只估制作时长,再演一遍老玩家从记起上一款游戏到找到新作的过程。哪个环节需要有人亲手补上?

原文与时间戳 · 2
work on assets, the trailer, work out the pricing, release dates
Antichamber: An Overnight Success, Seven Years In The Making · ▶ 34:43–34:49
they didn't know about others that I'd made, even if they'd played them and liked them
Put Your Name on Your Game, a Talk by Bennett Foddy and Zach Gage · ▶ 24:42–24:49

一个新帮手能腾出几小时?

把剩下的任务交给志愿者听起来能延长项目寿命。Elm 的设计者会先问,目标是否一致,双方要花多少时间把工作对齐?同一条功能请求,有人看重灵活性,有人想保持现有接口简单。《反室》作者咨询发行同行时,任务边界则窄得多。他要决定是否推迟发售。前者要先解决价值分歧,后者的经验能立刻用于一个具体决定。找人帮忙前,把期待对方解决的问题写到一句话里。

原文与时间戳 · 2
How much time does it take to coordinate with that person to get stuff done?
"The Hard Parts of Open Source" by Evan Czaplicki · ▶ 6:02–6:47 · 段落范围
You'll make more revenue releasing at a good time than you will lose via the delay.
Antichamber: An Overnight Success, Seven Years In The Making · ▶ 34:08–34:11

谁付改善的成本,又由谁决定下一笔支出?

共用燃气账单的例子里,一户更换窗户要承担自己的费用,节省的钱却由整栋楼分摊。把这个决定换成 Wolff 谈的购买机器,就能把「谁获得节约」和「谁有权作决定」列成两栏。Ammous 的玻璃珠和人造钻石比较还提醒,限制供给的可能是制造知识,也可能是人为的生产安排。核算一个项目的价格时,三件事要分别问:瓶颈在哪里、收益归谁、谁能改变安排。

原文与时间戳 · 6
all occupants shared a single gas bill
Heat Pumps are Not Hard: Here's what it will take to start pumping · ▶ 6:32–6:39
if we had gone in together as a building to replace all of the windows
Heat Pumps are Not Hard: Here's what it will take to start pumping · ▶ 7:10–7:14
who gets to decide who gets it.
Richard Wolff: Marxism and Communism | Lex Fridman Podcast #295 · ▶ 40:35–40:41
the decision of whether or not to buy a machine
Richard Wolff: Marxism and Communism | Lex Fridman Podcast #295 · ▶ 77:44–78:00
Glass beads were money in West Africa
Saifedean Ammous: Bitcoin, Anarchy, and Austrian Economics | Lex Fridman Podcast #284 · ▶ 13:48–13:50
So it's an artificial scarcity
Saifedean Ammous: Bitcoin, Anarchy, and Austrian Economics | Lex Fridman Podcast #284 · ▶ 40:18–40:20

录一次能播很多次,谁承担判断错误的代价?

Ravikant 用播客说明分发与投入时间可以脱钩,又提出把名字签在工作上,让声誉和结果发生联系。放到独立工作室的例子,一份游戏能被卖给许多玩家,只回答了交付能否重复。下一款的预算由谁出、延期时谁承担损失,要回到现金流和责任安排。播放量可以给出第一个问题的线索,无法独自结算后三项。

原文与时间戳 · 2
You have podcasts
Joe Rogan Experience #1309 - Naval Ravikant · ▶ 111:01–111:03
put your name on it so you take the risks
Joe Rogan Experience #1309 - Naval Ravikant · ▶ 112:22–112:25

下一轮工作缺的是收入,还是能接住新客户的人?

David Heinemeier Hansson 回忆,37signals 在接咨询项目的同时开发 Basecamp,产品起初是副业。这段经历把问题放在产品收入尚未撑起团队的时候:现有业务能不能腾出开发时间?Jason Cohen 讲的是已有产品之后的另一道限制。他说,即使营销还有扩张空间,团队也可能没有足够的人接住新客户的需求。把两段经历放在一起,可以分别检查两件事:下一轮开发靠哪笔收入继续,以及获客之后谁有时间提供支持。

原文与时间戳 · 2
it was a side business
David Heinemeier Hansson at Startup School 08 · ▶ 21:51–22:01
we can't do infinite marketing though because we're constrained by other things like human beings
Designing the Ideal Bootstrapped Business with Jason Cohen · ▶ 16:48–16:58

读完再想一步

挑一项需要持续做几年的工作。列出下个月必须支付的成本、一项现在投入但过几年才可能回报的工作,以及需求落空一次之后仍可继续的依据。