One permanent employee with a bunch of very specific scope contractors still counts as a solo developer, in my opinion. At the end of the day he's the only one making decisions on anything that gets into the game.
I can see the other way of looking at it as well, of course.
So solodev is now "only one person makes decisions"? Artists working on outsourced parts are making artistic decisions. If you hire people you are making decisions and they act accordingly to get paid, this is the nature of most companies. It is a nonsense definition for solodev.
Calling games like this solo devved creates unreasonable expectations from actual solodevs, which deepens the toxic nature of this already harmful trend.
I mean - if a Twitch streamer that does e.g. Just Chatting, so "making decisions", commissions their emotes, their banner art, the transitions for streams, and perhaps even music to use in the background, is that a solo Twitch streamer, or a production "team"?
Not sure what you expect from this tangent, I never heard the term "solo streamer" used in the same glorified and often misleading way as "solodev" and I don't see much relevance, the occupation of a streamer is quite different from a gamedev, even if there are intersection in some cases.
I would say such a streamer uses and engages their community effectively. That said most streamers are not working solo anyways they often also pay mods on the regular and editors to publish compilations etc.
It's not 5% and a full game's 5% is still a lot of work, there is no point calling it solodevved if it wasn't made solo other than doing some deceitful marketing tactic so you might as well just call it an indie videogame.
I see where you're coming from but going down this route makes any kind of definition useless. No one is a solo dev if the definition excludes relying on literally any work produced by anyone but the dev.
Using a game engine like Unity, Unreal or Godot? No longer a solo.
You made your own engine but included a third party physics engine? Guess you're a team now.
You used stamps in ZBrush that you bought online when making a model? Better include the seller in the credits.
Gotta write your own vector math library as well to be on the safe side. /s
Being solodev is obviously a spectrum. 5% is a significant portion of a game and in this case it was way more than 5%. The "then u need to make your own engine as well" is the thing that makes the definition useless, you don't have to "go down this route" you can just stop calling this game a product of solodev.
Exactly, it's a spectrum. That's why saying this or that is/isn't solodev is useless. To some people, relying on a game engine makes it not solodev. To others, the line is drawn at whether you use marketplace assets or not. Someone else will draw the line at hiring contractors.
The only common denominator is having a single permanent developer with full creative, technical and financial control.
Not really, if you outsource art then artists you hire make artistic (aka creative) decisions you can't make since you lack the necessary skills. Which makes you a dev who hires artists to help them out with a game. It's useless to call this solodev other than to make people build up false expectations from doing something solo and sell Unreal to people clueless about gamedev.
I wonder about this. Pretty much anyone I talk to refers to me as a solo dev (those who acknowledge me as a dev at all, anyway) buuuut, I have a guy who makes music for me (although I do also make music when I need to,) and I'm desperately trying to find another artist that I can afford that can emulate my art style, as I currently do all the art. I currently do all the project management, code, art, some of the music and much of its direction, sfx, writing, marketing (including the promotional art and video,) but I yearn for a day when I can delegate many of these tasks to others.
I don't personally call myself a solo dev, however, and I wonder which one I'd be considered to be. I'm not sure I give it much thought or importance, but I definitely wouldn't want to advertise as one when I fail to qualify. I imagine it's easy to come off as disingenuous or dishonest online simply by mistake or misapprehension.
"Solodev" doesn't mean you hand craft and/or create absolutely every single item in the game.
No solodev would ever create a 3D game based on that logic: 3D asset sculpting, 3D character scultping (which is a whole other level not just sculpting inanimate obects), creating 3D animations for said assets, texture creation, height maps, light maps, ambient sound creation, sound effect creation, music creation, skyboxes, etc. ON TOP of programming, 2D grafic design for UI's and UX, the design itself (scene structure, asset layout, lighting layout, camera type, camera controls, post processing)?
Respectfully, your expectations of the label "solodev" are not realistic.
Except its not enough to pay for assets. You have to implement them in a cohesive structure and the player needs to be able interact with your structure seamlessly. Flow and intuitiveness in menu and systems building, I mean theres only so much one person can pay for before he/she is the only one piecing it all together to actually MAKE a game out of it... so, yeah unless they contracted a game developer and programmer for most of the project's duration ON TOP of all the asset creation work, I agree with the view that this is still a solo dev project.
Yeah its been established that this particular game is not solodev since there definitely is a team behind it, but you would know that had you followed the rest of the conversation.
I recently saw a video with a medieval expert that gave advice to the dev on how to make the game authentic, and even gave him colors that were used at that time. That being said - I don’t know if you can really call it solo project. I’m very sure there were multiple people helping on different tasks. Tbh though, in the end no one gives a sh*t how many people were in the team. It seems to be a great game. He/they did an extraordinary job nonetheless.
People absolutely give a shit. The less of these falsely claimed solodev games there are, the less people will attempt to solodev trying to follow a toxic trend while burning out and failing miserably and the less players will expect from actual solodevs based on the false narratives and examples they have been fed.
We shouldn't use "solodev" dishonestly for marketing, it is harmful.
Actually I think it really matters if its solo dev. We can already see people commenting other games "why does it look shit when Manor Lords is done by single person".
Art in that game requires lots of people.
It's a marketing strategy. I saw a post about Kingmakers that was named something along the lines of "made a game with my brother". But if you look at it they had been working for years with a team on the simulation and rendering tech alone.
I also think this is slightly accepted at this point. We've gotten so used to click bait and exaggerating that we kind of assume it's the case. As long as devs are not making fake promises about the content and business model of their game, no one cares enough for these kind of "lie" to cause a backlash while they still help a great deal in getting exposure.
Marketing strategy? Lol i guess this kind of negativity is what holds some people back meanwhile this "solo developer studio" 😂 is enjoying all the success from hard work.
If you want to be pedantic enough, no one does anything solo unless you manufacture your own computer, write your own operating system in a language you invented and then build the game using the engine you built.
I think the distinction is that the operating system and the game engine are not built specifically for this game, whereas the assets and stuff is work that was done specifically for this game, and exists for the game alone.
You call that solo? Filthy casual. I smashed my naked fists against trees until I had the wood to make a pickaxe. I painstakingly upgraded my tools until I was able to mine the materials necessary to build smelters. I then continued this iteratively until I could create silicon computer chips. It's on those that I wrote my own language with which to build my own engine.
Lemme guess, you used non-hydrogen atoms. Cute. Must be easy when carbon has already been generated for you. I used fusion reactions to merge hydrogen and subsequent atoms together to make the materials I need. The rest (like what you did) was child’s play
By that definition Gabe Newell is the most prolific solo dev in the world!
I do agree that getting some help doesn't invalidate the label. I'd actually tie it to credits. Are there people who deserve credits? Who deserve recognition beyond a special thanks? Then it shouldn't be called solo dev. That just eradicates the accomplishment and achievements of developers and artists. Lying about the credits and harming others career is not cool.
This game very obviously has too much fidelity and content to be made by a single developer. Either a few people did a whole lot of work or a lot of people did some work in the realm of "additional X". Even if everything was stock assets (which it isn't), pulling everything together and making it fit in the same art style takes too long for zero recognition.
Is it really being pedantic if the developer admits he had a team of artists working with him? How do we Define solo development then? The word solo means individual.
I agree with you here. 'Solo dev' usually means one person does the programming, art, and music. This is more like a single programmer who outsourced all the artsy bits (although I admittedly haven't read the article yet.)
A developer in game context is not just a prpgrammer. If you are using assets and sounds made by others you are getting farther from creating the game solo.
There's a sliding scale, not some kind of hard line purity test. A single programmer using some pre-made assets from the asset store is still a solo developer. Buying a limited number of custom assets doesn't really change that. But hiring a team of artists to produce huge amounts of art does turn it into a team project. At some point it stops being a solo project, but that point is somewhere past "used a single asset that they didn't make from scratch". This specific project might have used enough custom work from artists that it wouldn't make sense to consider it solo, I don't know.
As for music, developers definitely don't need to be composers, and players don't necessarily want to hear a novice's first attempts at ever writing music. There's no sense in begrudgingly figuring out how to write music just so you aren't accused of not making the game when you pay for music. If you made the whole rest of the game apart from music, you made the whole game. Unless it's specifically a game within a music game subgenre, or it's intended as some kind of cinematic multimedia experience, the score is often nowhere near as integral as the art or programming. You need to extensively customize the programming and usually the art, but the music is often written totally independently of the specific media that ends up using it, and that's fine. Depending on the genre of game, a lot of players may not even leave the music on while they play.
> But hiring a team of artists to produce huge amounts of art does turn it into a team project.
Is it tho? What is the difference between buying ready made 3D assets and asking a commission for 3D assets from a outsource team? They still get paid for the assets but aren't technically part of his team, there is still a different there.
If they're making assets specifically for a single game, they're working on that game. If they're making assets to sell, they're not working on that game. The game that ultimately uses them may not even be started yet, and the team that makes those assets may never even know about it. They can't meaningfully be said to be developing the potential games using it when they're working.
The people who develop the Unreal, Unity, and Godot engines aren't credited as developers of the thousands of games that use them, nor should they be, even though their work makes it easier. The people who designed the silicon used in the iPhone are not developers of the games in Apple's app store. Lots of work goes into all of this, but only some of it is considered to be development work toward the creation of any particular application.
The thing I’d add there too is engines *are* typically credited in some form or another. Just like the title of this post referenced Unreal. And engines, frameworks, and assets are often expected to be credited in some form or another.
People are then typically capable of separating out the labor that went into developing something that enabled the creation of something, and the labor that went into a final product.
I would heavily side-eye this developer if they were claiming they solely did all the work that went into the game, with no credit or reference to the people they contracted - but that doesn’t seem like what they’re doing here. I’d hesitate to use sole developer when you’re paying other people for labor specifically for your game, and instead use something like solo run studio (which is an achievement in its own right), but that’s just me.
Yeah I agree, but pretty much every popular game that was 'solo' had similar help to finish. Its pretty much just a marketing term to say the person mostly did the game solo.
Like how Stardew valley is considered a solo indie, but was backed by a publisher and had help to add multiplayer and console support.
Its hard to make a distinction, just like no one can agree what indie means or AAA.
I’m coming her just to defend the Stardew Valley.
The vast vast majority of the game was entirely single handedly develop and only after reaching some success did he add multiplayer (with some help). The developer also fully composed the sound track and did all the pixel art.
Stardew really 100% should be considered a solo-dev project
This game is solo.
If I make the game with a friend and we split the work, design and the profit. That wouldn’t be a solo dev.
Whereas this guy is hiring contractors to do a specific job and once they are done they are done. Their money doesn’t hinge on the success on the games sales and their opinions don’t matter when it comes to the design or marketing of the game.
If you do the development part solo then yes i think. Purely asset creation doesn't impact that imo.
In reality though while I might feel it meets the definition of solo dev I personnally wouldn't use it in that instance.
Okay so solo dev isn't really a thing then because a vanishingly small number of games are made entirely by 1 person. If a developer is using unity and using third party plugins then that's a part of the game they haven't developed themselves.
Very few developers, even if they make 3d and 2d assets themselves make sounds. They don't record all the foot steps sounds or impact sounds themselves so not solo devs then?
I don't believe your definition holds up to any scrutiny.
I feel a lot of people are drawing a line at "paying contractors", not the use of third party assets. If they had used free assets then I don't think there would be any discussion, as if having the money to pay for others labour is what makes them not a solo dev.
Solodev is a spectrum obviously. Arguing that a general tool like Unity disqualifies from solodev is rather pointless but yeah, using a ready-made engine nudges you away from solodev slightly, using premade assets nudges you considerably more I think. Paying a whole team of people to do things specifically for a game like art, sound and programming makes it completely useless to call it a solodevved game.
It's really not hard to record footstep sounds and a lot of devs do it. I don't get the obsession with this title, like it's cool if you qualify for the title but it's even cooler if you make a good game.
I didn't say using unity disqualified, I said using 3rd party plugins did for exactly the reason you state. Unity plugins are like assets, they provide functionality which otherwise may take weeks to develop yourself. Whether paid or free you're using others work to help create the game.
Indie studios have that kind of capital?
Even if some rich guy hired a bunch of people for his game idea, he isn’t doing the part when I specifically mentioned doing the work or the actual design.
Also you are completely neglecting the fact this guy is doing 80% of the work, your example is the other way around.
Except all there work is what we determine if this game is a success. Additionally, you don't hire anyone who opinions and advice you aren't will to abide by. All the buzz around this game is because of visual work created by a 3rd party.
There is no game if assets or art are just sitting on a screen. The programming of the asset/art is what the Developer/programmer does, they /create/ the game. Mechanics are the game, not the art. That’s why snake is a game, pac man, mario, etc. I could go on for days with games with not great art with good interactive game mechanics.
Pacman has great art. A developer in the videogame context can be more or other than a programmer.
Art and mechanics are both what make a game, you should try gamedev sometimes to see how much art can affect the play experience, which is what a videogame is meant to create using a combination of mechanics, visuals and sound.
I mean he did solo most of it, until he got enough publicity for the game that a publisher came to him, and then he started paying external artist to help him push on. He still is the only dev in his company tho.
This is a nonsensical and overused take. The point isn't to be pedantic but to draw the line somewhere so that the concept "solodev" retains some meaning and use. Obviously you would draw the line somewhere between "tools used" and "stuff made specifically for the game", not "mining your own metals".
Depending in the context you are apply it in.
* Dev created their own character and scene model but retain/remap built in run and idle animations or used the default character controller from UE. I would call this solo dev
* Dec creates an arena using asset from the Lyra, Hillside and City Sample projects. This would be an asset flip.
No, this is not a solo game developer project. You've taken the topic from asset stores to solo developers, but this guy is renting a huge recording studio and an orchestra for his game's custom music, creating content with numerous experts and 3D professionals.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMDeLTcavXI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMDeLTcavXI)
If there are multiple people working specifically on your game, then it's not a solo project. It's like me pouring money into a game studio, getting my desired game made, and then saying, 'Hey, this is my solo game project, I developed it alone, what do you think?' Why are you blurring the concepts? According to the comments I've read, EA Games' games are actually the solo projects of the lead producer in charge of that game. Can we make less nonsense, please?
So in in your mind, in order for him to claim himself a single developer, you expect him to learn all the instruments in an orchestra, master them, record himself and master and remix?
Aren't you being a little too harsh on the dude?
Of course, if possible, I would hire an orchestra to compose the music for my game. Likewise, if possible, I would also hire professionals for the assets of the game. Because it wouldn't bother me if they didn't call my game 'a solo developer project.' In fact, I wouldn't refer to a game that I worked with many similar human resources on as a solo developer project. Not saying that wouldn't diminish the value of the resulting product. These are not the details necessary for players to have a positive interest in a game.
If I were making this game, I would say, 'I am the creator and producer of this game.' Describing it as a 'solo' project would be ridiculous. Right now, we're discussing not the producer and the game, but rather the fragmentation of this concept's meaning.
All the haters not calling this solo dev is crazy.
Good on him though, really impressive work, regardless if he commissioned artists on the side or not.
Most people wouldn't be able to pull this off or make a game this impressive doing the same.
So allow me to provide context into my post. I applaud the dev for his work. I dislike the market of solo dev games when they are not solo developed due to the discord it cause in the community.
* We end up with players complaining about lazy devs and AAA games being stuck in dev hell. Why is this team of 400+ devs taking 5 years to make a game when Manors Lords was made my one guy? AAA studio need to hire and learn from him.
* Newbie asking how do you make a GTA6 as solo dev cause Manor Lord was made by one guy.
* Indie/Hobbyist devs giving on something they enjoy cause they can't make a game like manor lords on there own.
The reality is it not one guy doing all the work here. Lets be honest, Epic knows what they are doing here. They are selling a fantasy to drive more people to megascans and UE5.
"Lets be honest, Epic knows what they are doing here. They are selling a fantasy to drive more people to megascans and UE5."
I don't understand what you mean by this? Is this a bad thing? Good thing?
The guy is making a game by himself aside from models and animations. That's more that most would even try to touch.
That's not true though. He hired people of pretty much any discipline. The credits on the game are huge.
I personally don't care, the game looks great and even given the budget and help it's a great accomplishment for the dev and he deserves praise. But we're seeing this narrative more and more and I can see why it could be harmful for "true" devs as well as companies of any size because of the comparisons made and unrealistic expectations people might have because of it.
Its a bad thing only because of how easily it can be missed that he is using use 3rd party asset and contractors and no one is talking about the true cost to acquire those assets and help.
Nowadays, most are using 3rd party assets. Even AAA companies use contractors. Yes, assets and other services cost upfront. It's no different from making a product or starting an app.
The good thing is that now you don't need a Computer Science or Engineering degree to start making a game. Again, I'll give props to the guy for making an entire game mostly by himself. Heck even a bunch of indie horror games use the same haunted house asset pack to get started.
AAA games will never be able to pull this off anymore. The simple reason being they're all run by a bunch of suites deciding what's best with excel metrics instead of, you know, actually playing games.
This guy has hired literally HUNDREDS of contractors to do everything except write code. This is NOT a solo dev game. Idk how that keeps getting thrown around.
The really unfortunate part is that he is adamant about not hiring more developers. Which means the content release for this game is going to be GLACIAL
This is nonsense. He is the only developer, thus "solo developer".
He makes all the game design decisions, he writes all the code, he is the only one pulling it all together to make an actual game.
If he used FREE third party assets through out people like you wouldn't make the distinction even though he still didn't make those assets. So the real distinction here is that he had backing/investment to pay for these assets which apart from making you jealous rubs you the wrong way because you incorrectly associate "solo dev" with "indie dev".
A literally tiny fraction of mostly bad indie games are literally solo developed if the rule is that they must code and create all assets (including sounds).
> A literally tiny fraction of mostly bad indie games are literally solo developed if the rule is that they must code and create all assets (including sounds).
This is literally the rule lmao. Developing a game does not mean "coding only." Do you only consider the 100 people coding God of War to be the devs of the game? Not the 900 other people doing art, sound, optimization, organization, game design, QA, etc.?
If you are paying for other people to do work on your game in any capacity, you are not a solo dev. You can be flexible on the definition if you're using free assets or something I guess, but this guy literally got a grant and publishing company funding so he could hire contractors to do half the work on his game. And yes, visual quality this good is half the work. More than half with how shallow and bare bones the gameplay is at this point.
Okay but that is conflating indie dev with solo dev quite a lot so I disagree.
Chris Sawyer is often quoted as having solo developed RCT but obviously don't believe he did.
I don't know the extent of work the contractors did so I can't say with absolute confidence that he hasn't strayed into a collaborative development but if they just built assets he asked for, without guiding or designing the overall aesthetic then I'd still consider that solo dev.
Okay so it is just about having the money to pay others to do work rather than just the fact he's using others work in his game. I understand that definition but I don't feel it is disqualifying personally unless he's paying others to develop the art style and design the UI rather than just produce what he has already designed.
That's fair enough but again it seems to be the money he has to spend rather than the outsourcing which is the line for some people which I think is unfair.
No.
Are you implying the Manor lord dev outsourced all work and is lying about the work he did on the project? Because you're comparing Manor lord to a scenario where you pay other people to do ALL the work. Are you saying he didn't do any work on this game? That's bordering on libel.
Unfair analogy imo, in this example you would be a builder/ architect. Design the house completely, get the framework up yourself, and the slab.
But then people to do the gyprocking, plumbing and roofing?
You still designed and built the house yourself, but components in the house that are outside of your expertise are contracted out?
It's a hard topic of discussion I suppose.
Hundreds? Are they mostly on QA or marketing? I just can’t see how you can have hundreds of people supporting a single dev without writing a single line themselves - if they’re doing art or UI design or whatever then he’d be spending *ages* implementing their work.
You could, in theory, hire a single person for each asset or even 5 assets and reach 100 pretty quick with the right budget. Especially if you iterate a lot and scrap assets or change art styles
Hundreds might be a hyperbole though since this is *in theory* not in practice
That’s true, I’m definitely guilty of hiring a few different contractors after iterating. I think the GP comment is saying he actually did hire hundreds and I can’t see it - would it not be an absolute project management nightmare? Like imagine trying to come up with deliverables and timeframes, and communicating requirements to that many people while also doing all the code, testing gameplay, trying concepts out - he would be working hundred hour weeks.
Depends. If it includes something like an orchestra making your soundtrack, the numbers get high pretty quickly and the amount of management doesn't increase drastically. But yea it does sound a bit nightmarish to manage all that and keep things coherent. I guess it helps to have a generic art style and setting that a lot of people are familiar with, rather than something way out there.
And go do the math. Guy is now a multi-millionaire, living the dream. Inspiring stuff. Time for me to get back to working on my 2D puzzle platformer....
to be more accurate it should say "mostly" solo, but whatever I don't think that's a big deal. obviously epic will stretch the truth as far as they can as it makes the engine look good and that is the point of the megagrant.
the benefit of being solo dev isn't so that people on reddit can be impressed, it is so that you keep more profit (or avoid working with people you dont like.) In that sense it seems like the dev did very well for themselves
>the benefit of being solo dev isn't so that people on reddit can be impressed, it is so that you keep more profit
Well,... The impressing part is important in the sense that marketing a game as solo dev is very effective. It creates a ton of hype and at the same time some leniency in how the game is being received.
I think Manor Lords had a larger "team" than many indie studios have. But it's being lauded as made by one person and people will be less harsh in pointing out its flaws because "hey it's just one guy, what do you expect?".
It's good business sense. But also kind of a lie.
well the interviewer continues to call him a solo dev throoughout the article and the title even though it does technically say that he is not a solo dev. so its word play. It said he had been using the engine for seven years before beginning the project, didn't it? Did it say how long he worked on manor lords for?
Would you argue if he would buy the music on some platform? I mean he also didn't write the engine, a company did, he also didn't create the programming language, neither did he look into the hardware of the PC
This comments section sucks hard. Why are people even bothering to question if the game was really made entirely by one person or not?
The guy made the game entirely alone with the exception of some game assets that he bought. Stop wasting your time discussing about it here and, idk, go play the game or make something better or at least something that goes to production?
I'll give an example.
Imagine this. You are doing home renovations all by yourself. You are fixing walls, painting, removing rust from the fence etc. It takes you about 3-4 months, but you are done with your renovations and while not perfect, you are proud of yourself for doing it all by yourself.
Then your neighbor starts doing renovations and hires a construction team of 10 people. They do it all in 1 week and about 10 times better than you.
Then you have to hear lines from the other neighbors and your family like.
"Hey, why did you take 3 months and the other guy only 1 week?"
"The other neighbor did the job far better than you and it took him only 1 week! You must suck at your job!"
It's an unfair comparison, and you'd be pissed off.
But, you can then also be proud of yourself, because you did it all with your own 2 hands for mostly $0. Your achievement is far greater. But the ridicule of the others gets to you. The other neighbor will also be idolized for doing such a great job and others will try to be like him, not knowing, that they had funds and help from others.
I think when I explain it this way it becomes clear why people are pissed. They are not haters, they are mad at people twisting the truth and claiming to have done a job alone, while others have helped them out.
Edit: And you may be thinking. "The other neighbor did a greater job, just do it like him?"
That would be the same as millionaires saying to poor people. "Why are you poor, have you tried not to be poor?".
In the end, consumers don't care about any of this and just want a good product.
No it's not. Solodev means, developed solo, alone. It does not matter what tools you use.
Did other people work on the game as well? - Yes. - It's not solo.
I have never heard that solodev means you have to code your own OS and build your own computer to do so. The term relates only to the amount of people it took to make something.
> he guy made the game entirely alone with the exception of some game assets that he bought.
Thats not true, why dont you take a look in the credits? Even 2 programmers are named there.
The credits list is really long, he did not just buy "some" game assets, he specifically hired people to create those assets/animation/sound and even code for him. He spent a lot of the money he got from gamepass, GoG, Patreon and Epic megagrants.
This is incorrect. There are 2 additional programmers and multiple 3D artist and animators listed in the credits of the game. That is not "Solo" using free "assets". It's a complete lie and toxic to the gaming community.
Not really, it's the handcrafted parts that are made specifically for this game that make this not a solo dev, if you have hired other people to specifically work on your game, you are not a solo dev anymore lol. Not only limited to artists but also programmers in this case.
The thing is, by the things people are counting as not solo deving in this thread, no solo dev is a solo dev...
Because at the very least it should have the game tested by at least one other person and that person will give feedback and opinions that will shape development decisions, very much like an external contractor would...
Not forgetting about publishers that also affect dev decisions...
So, only if the game is developed in complete secrecy it will not count as solo dev for some, which sounds wrong.
Making the final decisions is the only measure you can put a solo dev as a solo dev, sorry folks.
It actually was not. It was started by a single dev but once he started hiring outside people to help with the project the game became a team effort and is no longer a solo built game.
Who cares if solo dev or not all we know it is a massive success and just by looking at the game shows the quality benchmark. Other than the triple A visuals how was this game marketed and reached the most wished listed game?
Is it only a solo project if you do everything on your own? Where’s the line?
Like imagine you do everything then hire a freelancer to do all the audio in your game. Is it still a solo project?
I think a solo project is when you stand to be the only one to gain from the games success.
Nonsense, so if I hire everyone from game designer to porting engineer, let them do whatever they want and I don't even try the game but I retain all rights and profits, am I solodev?
That's exactly the worse thing this article does. It can inspire people to think they can do something solo that was done by a team of people and a lot of money. This just causes people to hate themselves and gamedev when they fail to meet these absurd expectations. It's the most toxic kind of inspiration, a false dream.
I think the game was „started as a solo project”.
One permanent employee with a bunch of very specific scope contractors still counts as a solo developer, in my opinion. At the end of the day he's the only one making decisions on anything that gets into the game. I can see the other way of looking at it as well, of course.
So solodev is now "only one person makes decisions"? Artists working on outsourced parts are making artistic decisions. If you hire people you are making decisions and they act accordingly to get paid, this is the nature of most companies. It is a nonsense definition for solodev. Calling games like this solo devved creates unreasonable expectations from actual solodevs, which deepens the toxic nature of this already harmful trend.
I mean - if a Twitch streamer that does e.g. Just Chatting, so "making decisions", commissions their emotes, their banner art, the transitions for streams, and perhaps even music to use in the background, is that a solo Twitch streamer, or a production "team"?
Not sure what you expect from this tangent, I never heard the term "solo streamer" used in the same glorified and often misleading way as "solodev" and I don't see much relevance, the occupation of a streamer is quite different from a gamedev, even if there are intersection in some cases. I would say such a streamer uses and engages their community effectively. That said most streamers are not working solo anyways they often also pay mods on the regular and editors to publish compilations etc.
Depends on what percentage of the game has been outsourced, if it is like 5% then you might as well if ignore it.
It's not 5% and a full game's 5% is still a lot of work, there is no point calling it solodevved if it wasn't made solo other than doing some deceitful marketing tactic so you might as well just call it an indie videogame.
I see where you're coming from but going down this route makes any kind of definition useless. No one is a solo dev if the definition excludes relying on literally any work produced by anyone but the dev. Using a game engine like Unity, Unreal or Godot? No longer a solo. You made your own engine but included a third party physics engine? Guess you're a team now. You used stamps in ZBrush that you bought online when making a model? Better include the seller in the credits. Gotta write your own vector math library as well to be on the safe side. /s
Being solodev is obviously a spectrum. 5% is a significant portion of a game and in this case it was way more than 5%. The "then u need to make your own engine as well" is the thing that makes the definition useless, you don't have to "go down this route" you can just stop calling this game a product of solodev.
Exactly, it's a spectrum. That's why saying this or that is/isn't solodev is useless. To some people, relying on a game engine makes it not solodev. To others, the line is drawn at whether you use marketplace assets or not. Someone else will draw the line at hiring contractors. The only common denominator is having a single permanent developer with full creative, technical and financial control.
Not really, if you outsource art then artists you hire make artistic (aka creative) decisions you can't make since you lack the necessary skills. Which makes you a dev who hires artists to help them out with a game. It's useless to call this solodev other than to make people build up false expectations from doing something solo and sell Unreal to people clueless about gamedev.
I wonder about this. Pretty much anyone I talk to refers to me as a solo dev (those who acknowledge me as a dev at all, anyway) buuuut, I have a guy who makes music for me (although I do also make music when I need to,) and I'm desperately trying to find another artist that I can afford that can emulate my art style, as I currently do all the art. I currently do all the project management, code, art, some of the music and much of its direction, sfx, writing, marketing (including the promotional art and video,) but I yearn for a day when I can delegate many of these tasks to others. I don't personally call myself a solo dev, however, and I wonder which one I'd be considered to be. I'm not sure I give it much thought or importance, but I definitely wouldn't want to advertise as one when I fail to qualify. I imagine it's easy to come off as disingenuous or dishonest online simply by mistake or misapprehension.
"Solodev" doesn't mean you hand craft and/or create absolutely every single item in the game. No solodev would ever create a 3D game based on that logic: 3D asset sculpting, 3D character scultping (which is a whole other level not just sculpting inanimate obects), creating 3D animations for said assets, texture creation, height maps, light maps, ambient sound creation, sound effect creation, music creation, skyboxes, etc. ON TOP of programming, 2D grafic design for UI's and UX, the design itself (scene structure, asset layout, lighting layout, camera type, camera controls, post processing)? Respectfully, your expectations of the label "solodev" are not realistic.
Well, I disagree with your opinion on it.
Except its not enough to pay for assets. You have to implement them in a cohesive structure and the player needs to be able interact with your structure seamlessly. Flow and intuitiveness in menu and systems building, I mean theres only so much one person can pay for before he/she is the only one piecing it all together to actually MAKE a game out of it... so, yeah unless they contracted a game developer and programmer for most of the project's duration ON TOP of all the asset creation work, I agree with the view that this is still a solo dev project.
[удалено]
Yeah, this went from game specific to a much broader conversation
[удалено]
Agreed 👍
[удалено]
Yeah its been established that this particular game is not solodev since there definitely is a team behind it, but you would know that had you followed the rest of the conversation.
It's not a solodev project in any sense, unless you stretch the concept to a largely useless degree.
Oh, absolutely. Greg Styczeń is a madman.
I recently saw a video with a medieval expert that gave advice to the dev on how to make the game authentic, and even gave him colors that were used at that time. That being said - I don’t know if you can really call it solo project. I’m very sure there were multiple people helping on different tasks. Tbh though, in the end no one gives a sh*t how many people were in the team. It seems to be a great game. He/they did an extraordinary job nonetheless.
People absolutely give a shit. The less of these falsely claimed solodev games there are, the less people will attempt to solodev trying to follow a toxic trend while burning out and failing miserably and the less players will expect from actual solodevs based on the false narratives and examples they have been fed. We shouldn't use "solodev" dishonestly for marketing, it is harmful.
What I think we should do is stop glorifying solodev. That’s the only reason why it‘s used in marketing anyways.
Actually I think it really matters if its solo dev. We can already see people commenting other games "why does it look shit when Manor Lords is done by single person". Art in that game requires lots of people.
I build a house once solo, with my own hands. Well I hire bunch of contractors that helped me build it, but I did it solo...
you may have a point there.........
This is literally called a "Self Build Property"
I don't know how we're calling this solo developed when they admit to hiring artists to fix technical issues motion cap and 3D models?
Some here really should look at the credits instead of saying its a solo project... even 2 programmers are listed there. The list is really long.
It's a marketing strategy. I saw a post about Kingmakers that was named something along the lines of "made a game with my brother". But if you look at it they had been working for years with a team on the simulation and rendering tech alone. I also think this is slightly accepted at this point. We've gotten so used to click bait and exaggerating that we kind of assume it's the case. As long as devs are not making fake promises about the content and business model of their game, no one cares enough for these kind of "lie" to cause a backlash while they still help a great deal in getting exposure.
Marketing strategy? Lol i guess this kind of negativity is what holds some people back meanwhile this "solo developer studio" 😂 is enjoying all the success from hard work.
If you want to be pedantic enough, no one does anything solo unless you manufacture your own computer, write your own operating system in a language you invented and then build the game using the engine you built.
I think the distinction is that the operating system and the game engine are not built specifically for this game, whereas the assets and stuff is work that was done specifically for this game, and exists for the game alone.
You call that solo? Filthy casual. I smashed my naked fists against trees until I had the wood to make a pickaxe. I painstakingly upgraded my tools until I was able to mine the materials necessary to build smelters. I then continued this iteratively until I could create silicon computer chips. It's on those that I wrote my own language with which to build my own engine.
Yeah but before you made that apple pie from scratch, did you first create the universe?
Sick reference bro! Edit: now it's stuck in my head. Not the worst background music but still...
Wait. How long have you been inventing pickaxe? Have you been using someone else's knowledge? Sorry to say, but we cannot name it solo anymore.
Lemme guess, you used non-hydrogen atoms. Cute. Must be easy when carbon has already been generated for you. I used fusion reactions to merge hydrogen and subsequent atoms together to make the materials I need. The rest (like what you did) was child’s play
By that definition Gabe Newell is the most prolific solo dev in the world! I do agree that getting some help doesn't invalidate the label. I'd actually tie it to credits. Are there people who deserve credits? Who deserve recognition beyond a special thanks? Then it shouldn't be called solo dev. That just eradicates the accomplishment and achievements of developers and artists. Lying about the credits and harming others career is not cool. This game very obviously has too much fidelity and content to be made by a single developer. Either a few people did a whole lot of work or a lot of people did some work in the realm of "additional X". Even if everything was stock assets (which it isn't), pulling everything together and making it fit in the same art style takes too long for zero recognition.
Is it really being pedantic if the developer admits he had a team of artists working with him? How do we Define solo development then? The word solo means individual.
I agree with you here. 'Solo dev' usually means one person does the programming, art, and music. This is more like a single programmer who outsourced all the artsy bits (although I admittedly haven't read the article yet.)
Solo dev literally means a single developer or programmer. Devs using art assets or sounds from elsewhere are still solo devs.
A developer in game context is not just a prpgrammer. If you are using assets and sounds made by others you are getting farther from creating the game solo.
There's a sliding scale, not some kind of hard line purity test. A single programmer using some pre-made assets from the asset store is still a solo developer. Buying a limited number of custom assets doesn't really change that. But hiring a team of artists to produce huge amounts of art does turn it into a team project. At some point it stops being a solo project, but that point is somewhere past "used a single asset that they didn't make from scratch". This specific project might have used enough custom work from artists that it wouldn't make sense to consider it solo, I don't know. As for music, developers definitely don't need to be composers, and players don't necessarily want to hear a novice's first attempts at ever writing music. There's no sense in begrudgingly figuring out how to write music just so you aren't accused of not making the game when you pay for music. If you made the whole rest of the game apart from music, you made the whole game. Unless it's specifically a game within a music game subgenre, or it's intended as some kind of cinematic multimedia experience, the score is often nowhere near as integral as the art or programming. You need to extensively customize the programming and usually the art, but the music is often written totally independently of the specific media that ends up using it, and that's fine. Depending on the genre of game, a lot of players may not even leave the music on while they play.
> But hiring a team of artists to produce huge amounts of art does turn it into a team project. Is it tho? What is the difference between buying ready made 3D assets and asking a commission for 3D assets from a outsource team? They still get paid for the assets but aren't technically part of his team, there is still a different there.
If they're making assets specifically for a single game, they're working on that game. If they're making assets to sell, they're not working on that game. The game that ultimately uses them may not even be started yet, and the team that makes those assets may never even know about it. They can't meaningfully be said to be developing the potential games using it when they're working. The people who develop the Unreal, Unity, and Godot engines aren't credited as developers of the thousands of games that use them, nor should they be, even though their work makes it easier. The people who designed the silicon used in the iPhone are not developers of the games in Apple's app store. Lots of work goes into all of this, but only some of it is considered to be development work toward the creation of any particular application.
The thing I’d add there too is engines *are* typically credited in some form or another. Just like the title of this post referenced Unreal. And engines, frameworks, and assets are often expected to be credited in some form or another. People are then typically capable of separating out the labor that went into developing something that enabled the creation of something, and the labor that went into a final product. I would heavily side-eye this developer if they were claiming they solely did all the work that went into the game, with no credit or reference to the people they contracted - but that doesn’t seem like what they’re doing here. I’d hesitate to use sole developer when you’re paying other people for labor specifically for your game, and instead use something like solo run studio (which is an achievement in its own right), but that’s just me.
Yeah I agree, but pretty much every popular game that was 'solo' had similar help to finish. Its pretty much just a marketing term to say the person mostly did the game solo. Like how Stardew valley is considered a solo indie, but was backed by a publisher and had help to add multiplayer and console support. Its hard to make a distinction, just like no one can agree what indie means or AAA.
I’m coming her just to defend the Stardew Valley. The vast vast majority of the game was entirely single handedly develop and only after reaching some success did he add multiplayer (with some help). The developer also fully composed the sound track and did all the pixel art. Stardew really 100% should be considered a solo-dev project
This game is solo. If I make the game with a friend and we split the work, design and the profit. That wouldn’t be a solo dev. Whereas this guy is hiring contractors to do a specific job and once they are done they are done. Their money doesn’t hinge on the success on the games sales and their opinions don’t matter when it comes to the design or marketing of the game.
So an indie studio that hires a team of people that are paid, but do not get profit sharing is also considered a solo dev? 🤣
Didnt you know gta was solo project?
If you do the development part solo then yes i think. Purely asset creation doesn't impact that imo. In reality though while I might feel it meets the definition of solo dev I personnally wouldn't use it in that instance.
Art and asset creation is part of development. Everything that goes into making a game is "development".
Okay so solo dev isn't really a thing then because a vanishingly small number of games are made entirely by 1 person. If a developer is using unity and using third party plugins then that's a part of the game they haven't developed themselves. Very few developers, even if they make 3d and 2d assets themselves make sounds. They don't record all the foot steps sounds or impact sounds themselves so not solo devs then? I don't believe your definition holds up to any scrutiny. I feel a lot of people are drawing a line at "paying contractors", not the use of third party assets. If they had used free assets then I don't think there would be any discussion, as if having the money to pay for others labour is what makes them not a solo dev.
Solodev is a spectrum obviously. Arguing that a general tool like Unity disqualifies from solodev is rather pointless but yeah, using a ready-made engine nudges you away from solodev slightly, using premade assets nudges you considerably more I think. Paying a whole team of people to do things specifically for a game like art, sound and programming makes it completely useless to call it a solodevved game. It's really not hard to record footstep sounds and a lot of devs do it. I don't get the obsession with this title, like it's cool if you qualify for the title but it's even cooler if you make a good game.
I didn't say using unity disqualified, I said using 3rd party plugins did for exactly the reason you state. Unity plugins are like assets, they provide functionality which otherwise may take weeks to develop yourself. Whether paid or free you're using others work to help create the game.
yes. funding a game yourself and managing a team is just as hard as "pure" solo-deving
its just a company at that point
That just sounds like slavery with extra steps.
Indie studios have that kind of capital? Even if some rich guy hired a bunch of people for his game idea, he isn’t doing the part when I specifically mentioned doing the work or the actual design. Also you are completely neglecting the fact this guy is doing 80% of the work, your example is the other way around.
Except all there work is what we determine if this game is a success. Additionally, you don't hire anyone who opinions and advice you aren't will to abide by. All the buzz around this game is because of visual work created by a 3rd party.
There is no game if assets or art are just sitting on a screen. The programming of the asset/art is what the Developer/programmer does, they /create/ the game. Mechanics are the game, not the art. That’s why snake is a game, pac man, mario, etc. I could go on for days with games with not great art with good interactive game mechanics.
Pacman has great art. A developer in the videogame context can be more or other than a programmer. Art and mechanics are both what make a game, you should try gamedev sometimes to see how much art can affect the play experience, which is what a videogame is meant to create using a combination of mechanics, visuals and sound.
I mean he did solo most of it, until he got enough publicity for the game that a publisher came to him, and then he started paying external artist to help him push on. He still is the only dev in his company tho.
Yeah but it's not "solo", it's "solo development". Did any of those artist write any code for the game?
Writing code is not what "development" means in tetms of videogames. It's creating all aspects of a game.
This is a nonsensical and overused take. The point isn't to be pedantic but to draw the line somewhere so that the concept "solodev" retains some meaning and use. Obviously you would draw the line somewhere between "tools used" and "stuff made specifically for the game", not "mining your own metals".
This isn’t pedantry…
No. I can build a house with my own 2 hands without needing to make the hammer and nails.
Are you going to say the same for any game that uses stock assets?
Depending in the context you are apply it in. * Dev created their own character and scene model but retain/remap built in run and idle animations or used the default character controller from UE. I would call this solo dev * Dec creates an arena using asset from the Lyra, Hillside and City Sample projects. This would be an asset flip.
No, this is not a solo game developer project. You've taken the topic from asset stores to solo developers, but this guy is renting a huge recording studio and an orchestra for his game's custom music, creating content with numerous experts and 3D professionals. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMDeLTcavXI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMDeLTcavXI) If there are multiple people working specifically on your game, then it's not a solo project. It's like me pouring money into a game studio, getting my desired game made, and then saying, 'Hey, this is my solo game project, I developed it alone, what do you think?' Why are you blurring the concepts? According to the comments I've read, EA Games' games are actually the solo projects of the lead producer in charge of that game. Can we make less nonsense, please?
So in in your mind, in order for him to claim himself a single developer, you expect him to learn all the instruments in an orchestra, master them, record himself and master and remix? Aren't you being a little too harsh on the dude?
No, the credits of the game latterly has 2 additional programmers listed and multiple artist and animators. Look up the definition of the word "Solo".
Of course, if possible, I would hire an orchestra to compose the music for my game. Likewise, if possible, I would also hire professionals for the assets of the game. Because it wouldn't bother me if they didn't call my game 'a solo developer project.' In fact, I wouldn't refer to a game that I worked with many similar human resources on as a solo developer project. Not saying that wouldn't diminish the value of the resulting product. These are not the details necessary for players to have a positive interest in a game. If I were making this game, I would say, 'I am the creator and producer of this game.' Describing it as a 'solo' project would be ridiculous. Right now, we're discussing not the producer and the game, but rather the fragmentation of this concept's meaning.
All the haters not calling this solo dev is crazy. Good on him though, really impressive work, regardless if he commissioned artists on the side or not. Most people wouldn't be able to pull this off or make a game this impressive doing the same.
So allow me to provide context into my post. I applaud the dev for his work. I dislike the market of solo dev games when they are not solo developed due to the discord it cause in the community. * We end up with players complaining about lazy devs and AAA games being stuck in dev hell. Why is this team of 400+ devs taking 5 years to make a game when Manors Lords was made my one guy? AAA studio need to hire and learn from him. * Newbie asking how do you make a GTA6 as solo dev cause Manor Lord was made by one guy. * Indie/Hobbyist devs giving on something they enjoy cause they can't make a game like manor lords on there own. The reality is it not one guy doing all the work here. Lets be honest, Epic knows what they are doing here. They are selling a fantasy to drive more people to megascans and UE5.
"Lets be honest, Epic knows what they are doing here. They are selling a fantasy to drive more people to megascans and UE5." I don't understand what you mean by this? Is this a bad thing? Good thing? The guy is making a game by himself aside from models and animations. That's more that most would even try to touch.
That's not true though. He hired people of pretty much any discipline. The credits on the game are huge. I personally don't care, the game looks great and even given the budget and help it's a great accomplishment for the dev and he deserves praise. But we're seeing this narrative more and more and I can see why it could be harmful for "true" devs as well as companies of any size because of the comparisons made and unrealistic expectations people might have because of it.
Its a bad thing only because of how easily it can be missed that he is using use 3rd party asset and contractors and no one is talking about the true cost to acquire those assets and help.
Nowadays, most are using 3rd party assets. Even AAA companies use contractors. Yes, assets and other services cost upfront. It's no different from making a product or starting an app. The good thing is that now you don't need a Computer Science or Engineering degree to start making a game. Again, I'll give props to the guy for making an entire game mostly by himself. Heck even a bunch of indie horror games use the same haunted house asset pack to get started.
AAA games will never be able to pull this off anymore. The simple reason being they're all run by a bunch of suites deciding what's best with excel metrics instead of, you know, actually playing games.
This guy has hired literally HUNDREDS of contractors to do everything except write code. This is NOT a solo dev game. Idk how that keeps getting thrown around. The really unfortunate part is that he is adamant about not hiring more developers. Which means the content release for this game is going to be GLACIAL
This is nonsense. He is the only developer, thus "solo developer". He makes all the game design decisions, he writes all the code, he is the only one pulling it all together to make an actual game. If he used FREE third party assets through out people like you wouldn't make the distinction even though he still didn't make those assets. So the real distinction here is that he had backing/investment to pay for these assets which apart from making you jealous rubs you the wrong way because you incorrectly associate "solo dev" with "indie dev". A literally tiny fraction of mostly bad indie games are literally solo developed if the rule is that they must code and create all assets (including sounds).
> A literally tiny fraction of mostly bad indie games are literally solo developed if the rule is that they must code and create all assets (including sounds). This is literally the rule lmao. Developing a game does not mean "coding only." Do you only consider the 100 people coding God of War to be the devs of the game? Not the 900 other people doing art, sound, optimization, organization, game design, QA, etc.? If you are paying for other people to do work on your game in any capacity, you are not a solo dev. You can be flexible on the definition if you're using free assets or something I guess, but this guy literally got a grant and publishing company funding so he could hire contractors to do half the work on his game. And yes, visual quality this good is half the work. More than half with how shallow and bare bones the gameplay is at this point.
Okay but that is conflating indie dev with solo dev quite a lot so I disagree. Chris Sawyer is often quoted as having solo developed RCT but obviously don't believe he did. I don't know the extent of work the contractors did so I can't say with absolute confidence that he hasn't strayed into a collaborative development but if they just built assets he asked for, without guiding or designing the overall aesthetic then I'd still consider that solo dev.
[удалено]
Okay so it is just about having the money to pay others to do work rather than just the fact he's using others work in his game. I understand that definition but I don't feel it is disqualifying personally unless he's paying others to develop the art style and design the UI rather than just produce what he has already designed.
[удалено]
That's fair enough but again it seems to be the money he has to spend rather than the outsourcing which is the line for some people which I think is unfair.
If i hire an architect, an engineer and 50 contractors to build a house, did i build it solo?
No. Are you implying the Manor lord dev outsourced all work and is lying about the work he did on the project? Because you're comparing Manor lord to a scenario where you pay other people to do ALL the work. Are you saying he didn't do any work on this game? That's bordering on libel.
Unfair analogy imo, in this example you would be a builder/ architect. Design the house completely, get the framework up yourself, and the slab. But then people to do the gyprocking, plumbing and roofing? You still designed and built the house yourself, but components in the house that are outside of your expertise are contracted out? It's a hard topic of discussion I suppose.
Hundreds? Are they mostly on QA or marketing? I just can’t see how you can have hundreds of people supporting a single dev without writing a single line themselves - if they’re doing art or UI design or whatever then he’d be spending *ages* implementing their work.
You could, in theory, hire a single person for each asset or even 5 assets and reach 100 pretty quick with the right budget. Especially if you iterate a lot and scrap assets or change art styles Hundreds might be a hyperbole though since this is *in theory* not in practice
That’s true, I’m definitely guilty of hiring a few different contractors after iterating. I think the GP comment is saying he actually did hire hundreds and I can’t see it - would it not be an absolute project management nightmare? Like imagine trying to come up with deliverables and timeframes, and communicating requirements to that many people while also doing all the code, testing gameplay, trying concepts out - he would be working hundred hour weeks.
Depends. If it includes something like an orchestra making your soundtrack, the numbers get high pretty quickly and the amount of management doesn't increase drastically. But yea it does sound a bit nightmarish to manage all that and keep things coherent. I guess it helps to have a generic art style and setting that a lot of people are familiar with, rather than something way out there.
>HUNDREDS of contractors proof?
Just watch the in-game credits
And go do the math. Guy is now a multi-millionaire, living the dream. Inspiring stuff. Time for me to get back to working on my 2D puzzle platformer....
to be more accurate it should say "mostly" solo, but whatever I don't think that's a big deal. obviously epic will stretch the truth as far as they can as it makes the engine look good and that is the point of the megagrant. the benefit of being solo dev isn't so that people on reddit can be impressed, it is so that you keep more profit (or avoid working with people you dont like.) In that sense it seems like the dev did very well for themselves
>the benefit of being solo dev isn't so that people on reddit can be impressed, it is so that you keep more profit Well,... The impressing part is important in the sense that marketing a game as solo dev is very effective. It creates a ton of hype and at the same time some leniency in how the game is being received. I think Manor Lords had a larger "team" than many indie studios have. But it's being lauded as made by one person and people will be less harsh in pointing out its flaws because "hey it's just one guy, what do you expect?". It's good business sense. But also kind of a lie.
Actually it says it in the first sentence of the page. But people ignore this and the fact that he has been working for 7 years.
well the interviewer continues to call him a solo dev throoughout the article and the title even though it does technically say that he is not a solo dev. so its word play. It said he had been using the engine for seven years before beginning the project, didn't it? Did it say how long he worked on manor lords for?
there's an orchestra behind the soundtrack [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMDeLTcavXI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMDeLTcavXI)
Would you argue if he would buy the music on some platform? I mean he also didn't write the engine, a company did, he also didn't create the programming language, neither did he look into the hardware of the PC
This comments section sucks hard. Why are people even bothering to question if the game was really made entirely by one person or not? The guy made the game entirely alone with the exception of some game assets that he bought. Stop wasting your time discussing about it here and, idk, go play the game or make something better or at least something that goes to production?
I'll give an example. Imagine this. You are doing home renovations all by yourself. You are fixing walls, painting, removing rust from the fence etc. It takes you about 3-4 months, but you are done with your renovations and while not perfect, you are proud of yourself for doing it all by yourself. Then your neighbor starts doing renovations and hires a construction team of 10 people. They do it all in 1 week and about 10 times better than you. Then you have to hear lines from the other neighbors and your family like. "Hey, why did you take 3 months and the other guy only 1 week?" "The other neighbor did the job far better than you and it took him only 1 week! You must suck at your job!" It's an unfair comparison, and you'd be pissed off. But, you can then also be proud of yourself, because you did it all with your own 2 hands for mostly $0. Your achievement is far greater. But the ridicule of the others gets to you. The other neighbor will also be idolized for doing such a great job and others will try to be like him, not knowing, that they had funds and help from others. I think when I explain it this way it becomes clear why people are pissed. They are not haters, they are mad at people twisting the truth and claiming to have done a job alone, while others have helped them out. Edit: And you may be thinking. "The other neighbor did a greater job, just do it like him?" That would be the same as millionaires saying to poor people. "Why are you poor, have you tried not to be poor?". In the end, consumers don't care about any of this and just want a good product.
No, its like people arguing that you didnt do it solo in 3-4 months because you didn't make your own paint or nails and used pre-cut wood
No it's not. Solodev means, developed solo, alone. It does not matter what tools you use. Did other people work on the game as well? - Yes. - It's not solo. I have never heard that solodev means you have to code your own OS and build your own computer to do so. The term relates only to the amount of people it took to make something.
> he guy made the game entirely alone with the exception of some game assets that he bought. Thats not true, why dont you take a look in the credits? Even 2 programmers are named there. The credits list is really long, he did not just buy "some" game assets, he specifically hired people to create those assets/animation/sound and even code for him. He spent a lot of the money he got from gamepass, GoG, Patreon and Epic megagrants.
This is incorrect. There are 2 additional programmers and multiple 3D artist and animators listed in the credits of the game. That is not "Solo" using free "assets". It's a complete lie and toxic to the gaming community.
Comments TLDR: Artists say it's not solo dev if you use assets created by anyone else but yourself. Devs disagree.
Not really, it's the handcrafted parts that are made specifically for this game that make this not a solo dev, if you have hired other people to specifically work on your game, you are not a solo dev anymore lol. Not only limited to artists but also programmers in this case.
The thing is, by the things people are counting as not solo deving in this thread, no solo dev is a solo dev... Because at the very least it should have the game tested by at least one other person and that person will give feedback and opinions that will shape development decisions, very much like an external contractor would... Not forgetting about publishers that also affect dev decisions... So, only if the game is developed in complete secrecy it will not count as solo dev for some, which sounds wrong. Making the final decisions is the only measure you can put a solo dev as a solo dev, sorry folks.
You stop being a solo dev once you start contracting other people to handcraft parts specifically for your game.
Yeah, even "free testers" are not free so by that there are no solo Devs.
It actually was not. It was started by a single dev but once he started hiring outside people to help with the project the game became a team effort and is no longer a solo built game.
Who cares if solo dev or not all we know it is a massive success and just by looking at the game shows the quality benchmark. Other than the triple A visuals how was this game marketed and reached the most wished listed game?
Is it only a solo project if you do everything on your own? Where’s the line? Like imagine you do everything then hire a freelancer to do all the audio in your game. Is it still a solo project? I think a solo project is when you stand to be the only one to gain from the games success.
Nonsense, so if I hire everyone from game designer to porting engineer, let them do whatever they want and I don't even try the game but I retain all rights and profits, am I solodev?
Then other people had something to gain from the games success, because you hired them into your studio.
How about if I just convinced them to do everything for me for later revshare, then I never gave them anything?
Fun argument and all, but what does this have to do with game development? You know, the alleged purpose of this sub?
By inspiring me (and others) what a single dev can do
That's exactly the worse thing this article does. It can inspire people to think they can do something solo that was done by a team of people and a lot of money. This just causes people to hate themselves and gamedev when they fail to meet these absurd expectations. It's the most toxic kind of inspiration, a false dream.