I'm starting a game company and looking for a co-founder.

Good luck, man. I already did that, and it really paid off. I did it mostly alone, with my brother as musician, with no investment. But it isn't easy. I gone for ensuring success, which meant making a complicated piece of software that is unique and for which i can be certain there is some market without having to second-guess the audience or compete with anyone.

Going the path well walked, gets you competing with all the 99.9% remakes that are entirely invisible. The most profitable game may be cow clicker, but there's thousands upon thousands of other cow clickers that are not profitable, and which you don't see. When you say you look at 'success rate' of X, don't be looking at the % of the successes which are X, that's your basic application of rationality to this decision right here. The simple toy games are not even exercises in game programming. They are exercises in marketing (and blind luck). If you had 10 000 hours of marketing experience, then you totally should go for them.

Your company plan sounds very much like how Valve is structured. You may find it challenging to maintain your desired organizational structure, given that you also plan to be dependent on external investment. Also, starting a company with the express goal of selling it as quickly as possible conflicts with several ways you might operate your company to achieve a high degree of success. Many of the recent small studios that have gone on to generate large amounts of revenue (relative to their size) (Terraria / Minecraft / etc) are independently owned and build 'service based' software that seeks to keep the community engaged.

Alexei, I would suggest an alternative and encourage you to apply to Valve. 1) It wouldn't take much of your time to try. 2) It may help you reach your goals more quickly. 3) You don't have to invest in building a rational organization, (which is costly and hard) since one already exists.

It would be a career oriented decision (few people leave Valve once they start there) and I know you are interested in applying yourself to existential risk as completely as you can, but you should consider the path of getting really good at satisfying the needs of customers and then through that, directing resources towards the existential risk problem. It may feel like you are less engaged, because you aren't there solving the hard problems yourself -- and if you have a high degree of confidence that you are the one to solve those problems then maybe you should pursue a direct approach -- but it is a path you should give serious thought to.

I wouldn't advise you to go work at any random company. Most game companies -- particularly large ones -- are structured in a way that doesn't mean you'd have a good chance of individual success (versus working anywhere else or doing something else).

Valve has one of the highest profits per employees in the world and is wholly owned by the employees. The company compensates very well. So my advice is specific to considering an application to Valve.

Two pieces of advice.

Firstly, write a formal business plan with the numbers as accurate as you can make them, not to show other people, but for your own consumption. How much equity do you want to have at the various stages? What skill sets or experience will the VCs be looking to see in your first 2 hires? What pay structure will you need to offer them to secure that? What skills don't you have, that you'll need your co-founder to have? Once you've got a few variant plans that seem plausible to you, apply your rationality training to them. (For example, have them checked over by someone with experience with business plans who you are NOT seeking funding from.) The reason for this advice? You're looking for a co-founder, one who shares your aims and values, someone who you'll enjoy working with, who might become a friend; but you're still going to be entering a hardball negotiation with them, and you need beforehand as firm an idea as you can get on what's possible financially, what you're willing to give up, and what you want to get in return.

Secondly, there's a lot of advice out there on how to write and present a good elevator pitch. Look for the advice written not by professional advisers, but by the people you want to emulate (successful software startup founders) and the people you want to impress (venture capitalists who have funded successful software startups). Then practice, practice, practice. Because the text in the article above is probably not giving the impression of yourself and your company that you want it to give, even bearing in mind the audience you've pitched it to.

Given the high failure rate of video game start-ups, you'd probably be better off going to work for a company.

Is anything known about the success rate of people who mostly design games which fascinate them vs. the success rate of people who mostly follow what's known about the gaming market? How about success magnitude?

Please re-read _Purchase Fuzzies and Utilons Separately_.

If you want to reduce X-Risk, go for it.

If you want to make games, go for it.

If you want to make lots of money, great! Go for it, it's great doing what you love and you can always buy some of the other two later.

Choose what's most important for you, because I fail to see how these three goals converge. Game development has awful ROI. Look at venture capitalists: who is backing game startups? Noone. Game development, like show business, is very hit-or miss and the fact that many successful studios have trouble finding the funding for their next title should tell you how bad of a business it is. Majority of game developers are unprofitable, programmers are paid ones of the lowest rates in their profession and are expected to work crazy hours. Many programming practices used in game development are nothing to be proud of outside of game development.

Why do so many people want to make games then? Because they crave making games. Because they feel that more is possible, that they caught a glimpse of some future potential that might just show itself. Maybe they are delusional. There's no rational reason to believe otherwise.

One renowned game designer wrote in his profile: "Making games. Since way back. Doesn't let go." At least, he's honest with himself.

Need anyone to write, edit, or proofread?

Do you plan to make it known either to investors or to customers your intent to donate to X-risk reduction?

I WILL HELP!!! Send me an email.

I've had an idea that tried to tie together game development and X-Risk reduction.

1. Earn some money
2. Hire Eliezer to write an online Singularity-themed Visual Novel that will draw more attention to the activities of Singularity Institute.

Alas, I stumbled on stage 1. But I think it could work. Eliezer is known to love writing, anime and I think visual novels too; and I think money plus the chance of advancing the cause could have seduced him into this project.

This was before Eliezer started Methods of Rationality. It turned out to be more successful that I could have hoped for a game, and it's just text! SIAI funding is on the rise too, I think. Just online visual novels are non-existent to this day (for reasons incomprehensible to me).

P.S. But I didn't try to mix in the third goal, earning lots of money as well as making games and reducing X-Risk!

I have a company, I even have the product and customers. What I need are more of the latter, worldwide.

It is a geek business, contact me if you feel to.

EDIT: former-->later (thanks to CronoDAS)

EDIT: later-->latter (thanks to CronoDAS)

I'm not attached to any particular game genre or game idea. Whatever gives the most ROI is good.

To take a line from Avenue Q, "the only stable investment is porn." Just sayin'.