$1000-$10,000 is a difficult goal for people who are learning or starting out. Realistically, if your game is good enough to make $1, it will probably make more than one dollar, but the goal of the October challenge is to finish a game that is good enough that you want to sell it. I'd argue that the emphasis is finishing and polishing vs. LD48's emphasis on game rapid creation and innovation. In either case if you want to have an inclusive community that also emphasizes learning and experimentation, you can't apply an arbitrary quality bar to entries, it's just not in the spirit of the jam. That's not to say it wouldn't be cool to have a depth, quality or value jam, but you'd have to limit the entrants to skilled game developers.
There are also games that have come out of game jams that have made $1000-$10,000 or more. Galcon, Depict1 and McPixel come to mind as games that started in LD48 or Global Game Jam and have had decent commercial success after the fact.
> Realistically, if your game is good enough to make $1, it will probably make more than one dollar, but the goal of the October challenge is to finish a game that is good enough that you want to sell it.
I don't really agree with that. It's entirely possible to produce something that can be put on Kongregate or even submitted to an app store that makes a few bucks and nothing more. In fact that's pretty much my whole complaint. We don't need more games that make $23.65 over their lifetime. People don't need to make them and other people don't need to play them.
> LD48's emphasis on game rapid creation and innovation
I do agree with you there. And the better entires I played from LD23 were innovative. However, those were a minority. If the goal is innovation then I think LD fails most participants.
> you can't apply an arbitrary quality bar to entries
I wasn't suggesting that a wall be put up. I was suggesting that by changing the format more emphasis would be put on quality automatically. I think if you can set aside a full weekend for game development you can likely set aside n hours over the course of a month as well. Not in all cases of course but in enough to keep the event open and inclusive.
> Galcon, Depict1 and McPixel come to mind as games that started in LD48 or Global Game Jam and have had decent commercial success after the fact.
Picking Galcon because it's a game I'm familiar with, the success of that game over the years had a lot to do with continued work on it, adding features, moving to new platforms, etc. Sure, it may have started in a jam but I don't think LD was a necessary condition of that game's success.
Look at it another way. Galcon was successful mostly because of the work done after LD. Hassey had the wherewithal to follow through with the game to make it successful. It's really the "after the demo" follow through that matters the most for both creative and financial success. I think LD (or other jams) would better serve the community if more emphasis could be placed there. I think a longer format and higher goals would be a step in the right direction.
I see what you're saying. Basically have a jam that's less of a sprint and more of a marathon that encourages quality feedback and helps people iterate on their game long term and build polished games.
I started a weekly game jam in the Bay Area that's focusing on this goal, although I'm still unsure on whether or not it will be successful.
There are also games that have come out of game jams that have made $1000-$10,000 or more. Galcon, Depict1 and McPixel come to mind as games that started in LD48 or Global Game Jam and have had decent commercial success after the fact.