Failure rates of Roguelike Games

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

It was one year ago that I first did a quick survey of roguelike games
to get some idea what the failure rate was.

At the time, it was determined that 27% of listed roguelikes had been
updated in the previous six months.

Since then, I have continued to track actively developing roguelikes.
You can check the latest listing at:

http://thelist.roguelikedevelopment.org/

Now, onto the meaningless bar graphs...

l #
l #
l #
l # # #
l # # #
l # ## #
l # ## #
l # ## #
l # ## #
l # ## #
l # ## # # #
l # ## # # #
l #### # # # ## #
l ##### ###### ## # # # # #
l ############ ### ## #### ####### ## ####
l -------------------------------------------
l 000000000111111111122222222223333333333444>
l 123456789012345678901234567890123456789012>

This tracks number of roguelikes by last release date. The first
column has a # for every roguelike released in the last month (counting
all of June and the single release so far in July) The very last
column contains all the roguelikes of unknown release date or which are
over 42 months since the last release.

The peek at the four month old mark is partly due to the 7DRL contest.
In the 03/04 categories are 9 7DRLs.

Numbers:
Month # Total Percent
1 15 15 15%
2 3 18 17%
3 10 28 27%
4 12 40 39%
5 2 42 42%
6 1 43 42%
7 5 48 47%
8 2 50 49%
9 3 53 51%
10 2 55 53%
11 3 58 56%
12 2 60 58%
Rest 43 103 100%

The only historical datapoint we have is the actively developing
roguelike percentage. This is the percent of roguelikes that have been
updated in the last six months. One year ago, this stood at 27%.

It now stands at 42%. If we discount the 9 7DRLs (which I do not think
we should do) we'd have a percentage of 36%.

Having tracked the data for a year, I can also provide some commentary.
Roguelikes, it seems, have a much slower development cycle than many
give them credit for. Further, a much larger portion of roguelikes are
still being developed than people think. If you watch on a daily
level, it is easy to come to the conclusion that this field is in
stasis. Long term monitoring shows that a large number of roguelikes
(about 15) are in monthly development cycles.
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
20 answers Last reply
More about failure rates roguelike games
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Fascinating. How do you account for the spike 38 months ago?
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Jeff Lait noted in rec.games.roguelike.development:

    > http://thelist.roguelikedevelopment.org/

    What an incredibly handy resource. I haven't
    even heard of some of these. Thank you.

    -Bryce
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    NIm <bladedpenguin@gmail.com> schrieb:
    > Fascinating. How do you account for the spike 38 months ago?

    Your viewing in a variable width font?

    --
    Jim Strathmeyer
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    It almost seems as if your link brought down
    a few servers. Maybe there are more lurkers
    here than I previously thought.

    -Bryce
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On 2 Jul 2005 15:21:25 -0700, "Jeff Lait" <torespondisfutile@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >It was one year ago that I first did a quick survey of roguelike games
    >to get some idea what the failure rate was.
    >
    >At the time, it was determined that 27% of listed roguelikes had been
    >updated in the previous six months.
    >
    >Since then, I have continued to track actively developing roguelikes.
    >You can check the latest listing at:

    Seems you missed an in-development release:
    Message-ID: <d8se5s$uma$03$1@news.t-online.com>

    (It's more like a progress report - the version provided is not stable and
    is save-file incompatable due to temporary breakage. )

    >
    >http://thelist.roguelikedevelopment.org/
    >
    >Now, onto the meaningless bar graphs...
    >
    >l #
    >l #
    >l #
    >l # # #
    >l # # #
    >l # ## #
    >l # ## #
    >l # ## #
    >l # ## #
    >l # ## #
    >l # ## # # #
    >l # ## # # #
    >l #### # # # ## #
    >l ##### ###### ## # # # # #
    >l ############ ### ## #### ####### ## ####
    >l -------------------------------------------
    >l 000000000111111111122222222223333333333444>
    >l 123456789012345678901234567890123456789012>
    >
    >This tracks number of roguelikes by last release date. The first
    >column has a # for every roguelike released in the last month (counting
    >all of June and the single release so far in July) The very last
    >column contains all the roguelikes of unknown release date or which are
    >over 42 months since the last release.
    >
    >The peek at the four month old mark is partly due to the 7DRL contest.
    >In the 03/04 categories are 9 7DRLs.
    >
    >Numbers:
    >Month # Total Percent
    >1 15 15 15%
    >2 3 18 17%
    >3 10 28 27%
    >4 12 40 39%
    >5 2 42 42%
    >6 1 43 42%
    >7 5 48 47%
    >8 2 50 49%
    >9 3 53 51%
    >10 2 55 53%
    >11 3 58 56%
    >12 2 60 58%
    >Rest 43 103 100%
    >
    >The only historical datapoint we have is the actively developing
    >roguelike percentage. This is the percent of roguelikes that have been
    >updated in the last six months. One year ago, this stood at 27%.
    >
    >It now stands at 42%. If we discount the 9 7DRLs (which I do not think
    >we should do) we'd have a percentage of 36%.
    >
    >Having tracked the data for a year, I can also provide some commentary.
    > Roguelikes, it seems, have a much slower development cycle than many
    >give them credit for. Further, a much larger portion of roguelikes are
    >still being developed than people think. If you watch on a daily
    >level, it is easy to come to the conclusion that this field is in
    >stasis. Long term monitoring shows that a large number of roguelikes
    >(about 15) are in monthly development cycles.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    oops
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Jeff Lait wrote:
    > It was one year ago that I first did a quick survey of roguelike games
    > to get some idea what the failure rate was.
    >
    > At the time, it was determined that 27% of listed roguelikes had been
    > updated in the previous six months.
    >
    > Since then, I have continued to track actively developing roguelikes.
    > You can check the latest listing at:
    >
    > http://thelist.roguelikedevelopment.org/
    >

    HA! has been updated more recently... (not a release, just the latest build)

    http://www.heroicadventure.com/dev/release/ha017_latestbuild.zip
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Raymond Martineau wrote:
    > On 2 Jul 2005 15:21:25 -0700, "Jeff Lait" <torespondisfutile@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >It was one year ago that I first did a quick survey of roguelike games
    > >to get some idea what the failure rate was.
    > >
    > >At the time, it was determined that 27% of listed roguelikes had been
    > >updated in the previous six months.
    > >
    > >Since then, I have continued to track actively developing roguelikes.
    > >You can check the latest listing at:
    >
    > Seems you missed an in-development release:
    > Message-ID: <d8se5s$uma$03$1@news.t-online.com>
    >
    > (It's more like a progress report - the version provided is not stable and
    > is save-file incompatable due to temporary breakage. )

    I've tried twice now to look that up by message id, but failed both
    times. Could you provide the author, title, and date, and I'll try
    again?
    --
    Jeff Lait
    (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Heroic Adventure wrote:
    > Jeff Lait wrote:
    > > It was one year ago that I first did a quick survey of roguelike games
    > > to get some idea what the failure rate was.
    > >
    > > At the time, it was determined that 27% of listed roguelikes had been
    > > updated in the previous six months.
    > >
    > > Since then, I have continued to track actively developing roguelikes.
    > > You can check the latest listing at:
    > >
    > > http://thelist.roguelikedevelopment.org/
    > >
    >
    > HA! has been updated more recently... (not a release, just the latest build)
    >
    > http://www.heroicadventure.com/dev/release/ha017_latestbuild.zip

    If you want me to index it, it'll have to be something I can find from
    the main page. The main page seems very explicit that there isn't a
    0.1.7. The development journal also states explicitly that it is an
    8/31 release time for 0.1.7.
    --
    Jeff Lait
    (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Jeff Lait wrote:
    > Heroic Adventure wrote:
    >
    >>Jeff Lait wrote:
    >>
    >>>It was one year ago that I first did a quick survey of roguelike games
    >>>to get some idea what the failure rate was.
    >>>
    >>>At the time, it was determined that 27% of listed roguelikes had been
    >>>updated in the previous six months.
    >>>
    >>>Since then, I have continued to track actively developing roguelikes.
    >>>You can check the latest listing at:
    >>>
    >>>http://thelist.roguelikedevelopment.org/
    >>>
    >>
    >>HA! has been updated more recently... (not a release, just the latest build)
    >>
    >>http://www.heroicadventure.com/dev/release/ha017_latestbuild.zip
    >
    >
    > If you want me to index it, it'll have to be something I can find from
    > the main page. The main page seems very explicit that there isn't a
    > 0.1.7. The development journal also states explicitly that it is an
    > 8/31 release time for 0.1.7.

    no problem. You are correct, releases are quarterly (with the next one
    due on 8/31) I have just recently started adding a "latest build" for
    those folks who don't wish to wait three months between updates. I'll
    add a link to the main site.

    S.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On 3 Jul 2005 15:30:25 -0700, "Jeff Lait" <torespondisfutile@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >Raymond Martineau wrote:
    >> On 2 Jul 2005 15:21:25 -0700, "Jeff Lait" <torespondisfutile@hotmail.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >It was one year ago that I first did a quick survey of roguelike games
    >> >to get some idea what the failure rate was.
    >> >
    >> >At the time, it was determined that 27% of listed roguelikes had been
    >> >updated in the previous six months.
    >> >
    >> >Since then, I have continued to track actively developing roguelikes.
    >> >You can check the latest listing at:
    >>
    >> Seems you missed an in-development release:
    >> Message-ID: <d8se5s$uma$03$1@news.t-online.com>
    >>
    >> (It's more like a progress report - the version provided is not stable and
    >> is save-file incompatable due to temporary breakage. )
    >
    >I've tried twice now to look that up by message id, but failed both
    >times. Could you provide the author, title, and date, and I'll try
    >again?

    Best to give the Google groups link, as most news servers don't keep
    messages for more than a week:
    http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.games.roguelike.angband/msg/7cad6c90f4f31b89
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    "Heroic Adventure" <spambucket@heroicadventure.com> wrote in message
    news:Mt0ye.23696$Tt.18033@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    > Jeff Lait wrote:
    >> Heroic Adventure wrote:
    >>
    >>>Jeff Lait wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>It was one year ago that I first did a quick survey of roguelike games
    >>>>to get some idea what the failure rate was.
    >>>>
    >>>>At the time, it was determined that 27% of listed roguelikes had been
    >>>>updated in the previous six months.
    >>>>
    >>>>Since then, I have continued to track actively developing roguelikes.
    >>>>You can check the latest listing at:
    >>>>
    >>>>http://thelist.roguelikedevelopment.org/
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>HA! has been updated more recently... (not a release, just the latest
    >>>build)
    >>>
    >>>http://www.heroicadventure.com/dev/release/ha017_latestbuild.zip
    >>
    >>
    >> If you want me to index it, it'll have to be something I can find from
    >> the main page. The main page seems very explicit that there isn't a
    >> 0.1.7. The development journal also states explicitly that it is an
    >> 8/31 release time for 0.1.7.
    >
    > no problem. You are correct, releases are quarterly (with the next one due
    > on 8/31) I have just recently started adding a "latest build" for those
    > folks who don't wish to wait three months between updates. I'll add a link
    > to the main site.
    >
    > S.
    [ To run this application, you first must install one of the following
    versions of the .Net Framework: v2.0.40607. ]

    While I would enjoy checking out HA, building a release around a BETA
    version of the .Net doesn't seem like a good idea. v2.0 beta2 loads spurious
    api's and has many artefacts that could cause problems for those that need
    to use .Net for other real world purposes.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 10:27:04 GMT, William Klett wrote:

    >"Heroic Adventure" <spambucket@heroicadventure.com> wrote in message
    >news:Mt0ye.23696$Tt.18033@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    >> Jeff Lait wrote:
    >>> Heroic Adventure wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>http://www.heroicadventure.com/dev/release/ha017_latestbuild.zip
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> If you want me to index it, it'll have to be something I can find from
    >>> the main page. The main page seems very explicit that there isn't a
    >>> 0.1.7. The development journal also states explicitly that it is an
    >>> 8/31 release time for 0.1.7.
    >>
    >> no problem. You are correct, releases are quarterly (with the next one due
    >> on 8/31) I have just recently started adding a "latest build" for those
    >> folks who don't wish to wait three months between updates. I'll add a link
    >> to the main site.
    >>
    >> S.
    >[ To run this application, you first must install one of the following
    >versions of the .Net Framework: v2.0.40607. ]
    >
    >While I would enjoy checking out HA, building a release around a BETA
    >version of the .Net doesn't seem like a good idea. v2.0 beta2 loads spurious
    >api's and has many artefacts that could cause problems for those that need
    >to use .Net for other real world purposes.

    Just a thought - I haven't tried it - but what about mono?
    --
    auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
    *****
    I see your lessons at charm school paid off.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    In article <1120342885.213672.129740@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    torespondisfutile@hotmail.com says...
    > It was one year ago that I first did a quick survey of roguelike games
    > to get some idea what the failure rate was.
    >
    > At the time, it was determined that 27% of listed roguelikes had been
    > updated in the previous six months.

    So we can't tell whether these were successful or not, as they are
    still under development. Of the 73% that were either completed or
    abandoned, what percentage were successful?

    - Gerry Quinn
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Raymond Martineau wrote:
    > On 3 Jul 2005 15:30:25 -0700, "Jeff Lait" <torespondisfutile@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Raymond Martineau wrote:
    > >> On 2 Jul 2005 15:21:25 -0700, "Jeff Lait" <torespondisfutile@hotmail.com>
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >It was one year ago that I first did a quick survey of roguelike games
    > >> >to get some idea what the failure rate was.
    > >> >
    > >> >At the time, it was determined that 27% of listed roguelikes had been
    > >> >updated in the previous six months.
    > >> >
    > >> >Since then, I have continued to track actively developing roguelikes.
    > >> >You can check the latest listing at:
    > >>
    > >> Seems you missed an in-development release:
    > >> Message-ID: <d8se5s$uma$03$1@news.t-online.com>
    > >>
    > >> (It's more like a progress report - the version provided is not stable and
    > >> is save-file incompatable due to temporary breakage. )
    > >
    > >I've tried twice now to look that up by message id, but failed both
    > >times. Could you provide the author, title, and date, and I'll try
    > >again?
    >
    > Best to give the Google groups link, as most news servers don't keep
    > messages for more than a week:
    > http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.games.roguelike.angband/msg/7cad6c90f4f31b89

    It's good to hear that sCtathBand is active.

    Is there anything other than an ftp deep link to point to 1.0.20? I've
    got thelist currently pointing to thangorodrim which still only lists
    1.0.18. The website listed there also ends at 1.0.18. Is there some
    other development website I should link to?
    --
    Jeff Lait
    (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Raymond Martineau wrote:
    > On 3 Jul 2005 15:30:25 -0700, "Jeff Lait" <torespondisfutile@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Raymond Martineau wrote:
    > >> On 2 Jul 2005 15:21:25 -0700, "Jeff Lait" <torespondisfutile@hotmail.com>
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >It was one year ago that I first did a quick survey of roguelike games
    > >> >to get some idea what the failure rate was.
    > >> >
    > >> >At the time, it was determined that 27% of listed roguelikes had been
    > >> >updated in the previous six months.
    > >> >
    > >> >Since then, I have continued to track actively developing roguelikes.
    > >> >You can check the latest listing at:
    > >>
    > >> Seems you missed an in-development release:
    > >> Message-ID: <d8se5s$uma$03$1@news.t-online.com>
    > >>
    > >> (It's more like a progress report - the version provided is not stable and
    > >> is save-file incompatable due to temporary breakage. )
    > >
    > >I've tried twice now to look that up by message id, but failed both
    > >times. Could you provide the author, title, and date, and I'll try
    > >again?
    >
    > Best to give the Google groups link, as most news servers don't keep
    > messages for more than a week:
    > http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.games.roguelike.angband/msg/7cad6c90f4f31b89

    It's good to hear that sCtathBand is active.

    Is there anything other than an ftp deep link to point to 1.0.20? I've
    got thelist currently pointing to thangorodrim which still only lists
    1.0.18. The website listed there also ends at 1.0.18. Is there some
    other development website I should link to?
    --
    Jeff Lait
    (POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Well I use the 1.1 framework all day every day in production on
    numerous machines that have the 2.0 beta installed and I have yet to
    experience ANY problems, but your mileage may vary.

    I'm not here to argue the merits of .NET or of a particular version of
    the framework (it's already been done to death, over and over). If you
    want to try it, please do so. If you don't want to, then feel free to
    wait until the 2.0 framework final release ships or whenever suits your
    fancy.

    If you're curious, the reason I chose to use the 2.0 framework was
    because it made things easier for me as a developer. Ultimately that's
    the best reason there is, IMO.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    I have not tried it with mono. If you do, and have any success please
    let me know and I'll certainly look into it further.

    Thanks!!
    S.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    On 5 Jul 2005 11:02:38 -0700, Sama wrote:

    >I have not tried it with mono. If you do, and have any success please
    >let me know and I'll certainly look into it further.

    Well... as I've said before - in this group, no less - I don't do .Net,
    and that includes Mono. What I meant was, does it run on Mono, and is it
    worth it?
    --
    auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
    *****
    Fine with me. We'll sit quietly. I can loathe you in silence.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

    Auric__ wrote:
    > On 5 Jul 2005 11:02:38 -0700, Sama wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I have not tried it with mono. If you do, and have any success please
    >>let me know and I'll certainly look into it further.
    >
    >
    > Well... as I've said before - in this group, no less - I don't do .Net,
    > and that includes Mono. What I meant was, does it run on Mono, and is it
    > worth it?

    well... "worth it" is pretty subjective... it is to me. Although I
    haven't tried mono yet either. heh

    S.
Ask a new question

Read More

Development Games Video Games