Don’t Ship the Wrong Game: A Framework for Choosing What to Finish | René Habermann | GCF 2025

“Don’t Ship the Wrong Game: A Framework for Choosing What to Finish” — René Habermann (GCF 2025)

Make commercially viable games sustainably as an indie studio by validating early and often. Use a repeatable framework of prototype → core-fancy → demo → release and decide at each validation point whether to continue, pivot, or kill the project.

Core thesis

• Validate early and often to make commercially viable games sustainably.
• Follow a repeatable pipeline: jam prototype → prototype refinement → core-fancy → demo → production → release.
• At each exposure/validation point, choose to continue, pivot, or kill the project — and adjust scope accordingly.

Case studies / examples

Dome Keeper

• Premise: you’re a miner/astronaut who digs for resources, returns them to a dome to buy upgrades, and defends the dome against monsters. Loop: mine → upgrade → defend.
• Origin and timeline:
  • 3-day Ludum Dare jam prototype
  • Strong jam feedback
  • ~8 weeks of prototype refinement
  • Demos and further exposure
  • ~9 months production
  • Successful release (~1.4M sales, ~90% positive rating, reached top sellers)
• Key lessons:
  • Early demos led to a sudden YouTube pickup and a massive wishlist spike.
  • Staying playable and exposed to players from day 3 was crucial.

PBK / PVK (current project referenced)

• Started from an older prototype.
• Refined into a “core-fancy” — roughly 30% of final features but polished enough to convey the experience.
• Early announcement itself validated demand, allowing the team to pace demos and production.

Framework & process (stages and timings)

• Typical pipeline:
  1. Game jam prototype (3 days)
  2. Prototype refinement (~8 weeks)
  3. Production (~9 months)
  4. Release & post-release
• Progressive exposure: open the build to more players over time (jam peers → itch → small demos → Steam demo/announcement → release).
• Treat each exposure as a decision point: continue / pivot / kill, and adjust scope to meet experience goals.

Three types of “wrong game” to avoid

• Undesired
  • Symptoms: no market demand, low wishlists/followers, little positive validation.
  • Cause: poor or no market validation.
  • Response: kill or pivot early.
• Misaligned
  • Symptoms: early interest exists but the shipped game doesn’t match player expectations.
  • Causes: communication/marketing mismatch, closed testing groups, poor first-time UX.
  • Response: define clear experience goals, test first-time players, align team and messaging.
• Overdeveloped
  • Symptoms: good interest but production costs exceed likely returns.
  • Causes: scope creep, excessive polish (often art), repeated reworks.
  • Response: iterate by validation points, keep prototyping mentality, enforce flexible scope or hard deadlines, cut by experience goals.

Prototype guidelines and practical tips

• Speed > polish: ship simple, fast solutions to learn quickly.
• Clarify only what’s necessary early; avoid building generalized tech before requirements are known (e.g., don’t invest in full procedural systems until needed).
• Prefer “good enough” (80%) implementations and pragmatic shortcuts — many placeholders never get reworked.
• Play and playtest early and often — even harsh internet playtests are valuable.
• Retain the prototype’s spirit during production: flexible scope and fast iteration.

How to validate a prototype (holistic view)

• Use multiple validation sources — combine qualitative and quantitative signals; no single metric is definitive:
  • Jam ratings and comments (e.g., Ludum Dare)
  • Itch.io plays, ratings, and collections — use engagement ratios (plays → rating/collection)
  • Steam wishlists/followers and SteamDB charts
  • YouTube pickup: presence of videos and view performance relative to channel averages (viral videos often drive rapid wishlist growth)
  • Press coverage (e.g., Rock Paper Shotgun)
  • Expo floor testing and Discord/tester groups (watch for closed-group bias)
• Interpret player comments:
  • “Type A” (polite praise): often low signal for real demand
  • “Type B” (demanding, asking to expand or bring to Steam): strong signal of player investment
• Gauge emotional resonance early by discussing the idea before building (a la Chuck Palahniuk’s test).

Design discipline & team alignment

• Define experience goals (how the game should feel), not only feature lists; use them to prune scope.
• Build for players (respect feedback) while balancing the team’s vision.
• Explicitly test and optimize the first-time-user experience.
• Avoid overspending on art unless it materially affects commercial success.

Practical validation examples and metrics

• Release jam prototypes on itch.io and the jam site; measure plays, ratings, and collections.
• Track Steam wishlist spikes and correlate them with demos, trailers, or YouTube coverage.
• Use playtests (expos, Discord, friends) and interpret the data qualitatively — larger absolute attention (more players/reviews) typically beats small-sample positive ratings.

Final advice

• Kill or pivot projects that show no traction.
• Avoid huge, prolonged bets without external validation.
• Keep making prototypes (game jams, internal sprints) to discover resonant ideas and maintain creative momentum.

Gamers / sources / names mentioned

• René Habermann (speaker)
• Bipin Bits (studio)
• Dome Keeper (game) — originally “Dome Romantic” (jam name)
• PBK / PVK / PBKK (prototype / current game referenced)
• Lavender Fields (game jam project)
• Ludum Dare (game jam)
• itch.io
• Steam, Steam NextFest, SteamDB
• “Games Made in Germany” (Steam sale / event)
• YouTubers: Redformation (first pickup), Clammy Games (shout-out), Tristan (viral example)
• Rock Paper Shotgun (press)
• Fury (publisher mentioned)
• Chuck Palahniuk (author, referenced method)