you are better off taking the mental energy you would have expended on "investing" and subsequently worrying about your money, and instead funneling it into your creative endeavors. You will make more money that way, especially when you take a long-term view.
...
If creative endeavors are profitable, you can use the resulting money to fuel more creative endeavors, thus making the world a better place. Keeping money in a bank account or publicly-traded stock does not particularly make the world a better place.
Once I got approximately into the f-you money level of income, it became crystal clear how fictitious money is in the first place. I wake up one morning, and bam, I am wealthy! Why? Because someone said so and typed a number into a computer. Okay... that's kind of weird.
Given that money is so fictitious and somewhat meaningless, it is a shame to give into primal hoarding impulses, just so one can see the number in one's bank account go up like a high score in a video game. It's much better to make like Elon Musk and use your money for what it is: a way to wield influence to make the world more like you would like it to be.
Sure, money is fictitious and meaningless once you've moved into the f-you echelon. By definition. Perhaps for that segment piping it into creative endeavors is fulfilling and worthwhile.
For everyone else for whom money is a meal, rent, or essential good instead of an expletive, who cannot afford to take an ethereally long-term view, this advice is out of touch with reality if not plain dangerous.
You and I read his advice quite differently. Once you quite your job to pursue your dream you have a finite runway determined by your savings and minimum expenses. He is suggesting you use that runway to build you dream instead of using it to try to get funding for a longer runway.
Without your "bad dreams" we wouldn't have the Red Cross, Kiva, Linux (or a majority of *nix releases), GPG (or lots of other OSS projects), One, Doctors Without Borders (or any number of other non-profit organizations), immense amounts of historically important art, music, documentaries, museums...
Some of the best, most important dreams in human history weren't profitable.
One would argue that "social profit" (ie: where society profits) is where all those not-for-profit "bad dreams" go.
The Red Cross movement especially brought forward the Geneva Conventions (which improved the conditions of prisoners of war), successfully fought epidemics, and (in my opinion) began a tradition of humanism that combats extreme fundamentalism in a practical non-violent way (which is why the worst fundamentalists target Red Cross/Red Crescent workers.)
All of those things are profitable in the sense that's relevant to this context. In this context, "profitable" is clearly being used to simply mean financially viable. Nonprofit organizations produce surplus revenue, they just happen to use that surplus to further invest in the official (and legally-approved) goal of the organization.
I agree with you in that I think Jonathan is speaking a bit too idealistically. But I agree with Jonathan in that I personally don't put a lot of 'value' on holding on to money. I would rather spend my (minimal amount of) money enriching others lives, doing small things like tipping well or picking up friends meals. I think ultimately it is up to the individual how they derive their happiness, and ultimately decide what value they assign to monetary wealth. Maybe rather than categorizing money as meaningless, it would be better to describe money as a tool whose utility is determined by its owner. And then the key is that we must avoid judging others when they place a different value on their money than we do.
The point more is about how money isn't actually a thing. It's one of many ways to obtain something. Just one of them. For example if you are a high profile game developer, no matter what you release for a long time you will pay your basic bills, not because you have money now, but because you can get it relatively easily. It's not the money anymore since once you are enough in demand you can essentially print money by working so it really is meaningless in that context. It's very very different from someone who has no money and no real way to obtain it. It's not the money but the ability to get it easily that matters.
This is good advice for a very narrow segment of creative people and not everyone at large. It's terrible advice for people with children, for example.
I think reaching "Fuck you" levels of wealth has a very slightly different (3% higher?) definition for people with kids, but otherwise the advise is the same. Once you (or, you and your family, if you have one) are financially safe, don't hoard.
I have to disagree. Someone in poverty already knows money is a proxy for what they actually want. They understand perfectly that barter work or a gift can provide the same things without the control and authority structures around money.
I imagine it's because you need to save for your kids to go to school, college, and to generally ensure their well being, and those things have a pretty set timeline. That being the case, taking the risks of pouring all your money into creative endeavors doesn't appear to be a particularly responsible thing to do as a parent.
Lots of places have free education and healthcare. Even the US seems to be be slowly approaching the western median safety net level there with the path started by Obamacare and plummeting bang for buck of college education... Increased risk tolerance helps on many fronts.
I'm from the US so I can only comment on the situation here, but the reality is that despite public education being free till college, it is for the most part terrible.
So, if you want your kids to get a proper education you'll either have to pay for a good school or get a house in a nice neighborhood; both things which require one to constantly be paying a substantial amount of money, whether it be for the mortgage, taxes, or tuition.
I believe my co-founder and I were the oldest founders ever funded by YC at the time (in 2007) and I was 33 and my co-founder was, I think, 34 with a wife and two kids. The batch after ours had a couple of folks in their 40s, and I think the average age has crept up a bit over time, though the founders do tend to still be quite young.
I don't think pg would behave like that, let alone say that. He was 29 when he started Viaweb, which is not far from 35. YC has funded people over 35 as well.
It wasn't because you quoted pg; you didn't quote pg.
The downvotes were more likely because the comment was false (pg and YC invest in plenty of founders over 35) and unduly personal ("your mindset is exactly why...").
You didn't exactly quote him, you stated his opinion and reasoning, without clarifying if it was your interpretation or his direct statement, and included no reference.
That said, I generally agree with the sentiment. People with commitments are less free to play with their resources, at least if they are responsible. An who wants to invest in someone who's not responsible. There are, of course, exceptions, and even times when the opposite holds true; commitments can force a level of responsibility and drive because the stakes may be higher.
The closest thing that I can find that pg has said on the matter is that good hackers between about 23 and 38 should start a company. He said 38 was the upper bound because the simple reality is that the affordability of risk declines with age. But, even then he said that there was a lot of play in that number.
In general I agree with that, although having enough money "hoarded" such that you can collect a monthly stipend to cover basic necessities (like food, shelter, and utilities) makes spending all your time on investing your creative energies a lot less stressful :-)
Though his point is not lost, the use of "primal" in "it is a shame to give into primal hoarding impulses" isn't fully accurate.
Would not primal hunter gatherers have spent it while they had it - resources being plentiful for those skilled to find and kill? Didn't hoarding only become necessary when humans transitioned to farming?
In fact it _is_ a primal urge to consume what you've earned, spending it on improving yourself/project.
You know why I want money? Why I always demand a lot of money as payment? Because money can replace everything - house, food, happiness, love - you can buy it all with money. Money is extremely important and yet, it is completely replaceable. I hate people who say "I cannot live with this or that". Your life is more important than any possession. All you need is money.
Blow is also attempting to build a programming language [1], based on his experience in game development. While I don't agree with his direction, so far, watching the process is very interesting. The next Jai demo was announced for Feb 11th [2].
Actually, he's been doing this for a while. When he was at XCF at Berkeley in the early 90s, I had contributed to his FMPL (Frobozz Magic Programming Language) project, writing MUDs in it. (I wrote a Dikumud/D&D like system).
He's a wiz, and his C code was humorously commented that makes it a joy to read.
My only issue with the series is that he uses WinAPI instead of something more... sane, like SDL or OpenGL; which makes the code much more obscure and low level, and the code not portable at all.
I guess, however, that I could learn a thing or two about getting stuff done and structuring an engine/game. Wish I had the time to watch this.
Actually I found that to be one of the major strength, it encouraged me to look into how the corresponding Linux API's work and made me realize that it isn't all that hard to get something like an OpenGL window (at least if you use GLEW) with basic input working. Even something like the dynamic code reloading he does by using Windows API calls, can be ported fairly trivially to Linux.
We were making commercial games from our bedroom in the 80's and 90's but we were not calling ourselves "indies".
I'm pretty sure industry comparisons with indie filmmakers and indie music bands started before Braid (IndieCade was founded in 2005), but as a widely used and popular term, I think it's fair to choose 2008 as a turning point [1], and Braid as the poster child.
That segment of the market has gone through many names. I remember playing Wolfenstein 3D and Doom as "shareware" which defined a fairly large chunk of the indie market back in the early 90's. Before that there were people putting games out on BBS systems that you could buy the full versions of by mailing in checks of money with your return address. You don't get much more "indie" than that (but you can).
Sierra started with Ken and Roberta Williams working out of their house on Mystery House, in their spare time while Ken held down a full time job. Later, of course, they became a big company and so no longer indie.
Yeah, that's a bit of an odd thing to say. It may rightfully be considered among the first indie games that got mainstream attention, but 'original indie game' is rather an overstatement.
This is very true. However, I recall it being in the first crop of commercially successful indie games: World of Goo, Super Meat Boy, Castle Crashers, Braid.
"Indie" doesn't just mean independent. It is (or was) a specific scene, centered to an extent around TIGSource and its forums. The games that came from this scene are what put the genre in its current spotlight.
I would say that that's a redefinition/hijacking of a word that's been in use since long before 2008 to mean exactly "independent" in many different art forms.
EDIT: You may find it interesting to read Jordan Mechner's journals about the making of Prince of Persia as a solo dev (published by Broderbund, so not quite fitting the indie self distribution model today, but otherwise fairly similar). They used to be available online, which may not be true anymore, but it's certainly worth $8 or whatever they may be asking for.
Still, that's how the word is used today. Many, if not most, "indie" games are either made by those original TIGSource people, or were strongly influenced by contact with that community.
"It was first released on December 10, 1993, when a shareware copy was uploaded to an FTP server at the University of Wisconsin."
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm sure they published it later via a variety of publishers, but they made a ton off of the shareware version. Masters of Doom is a fantastic read, if you haven't read it.
Actually, this was around 2008 or so, so Steam was already out for a few years. Most of those games hit it big on XBLA before heading to Steam a few years later.
Well, it is also not hard to think of other successful independent games that predate 2004. Or 1994. Or 1984. It seems to come down to what you mean by it? Without access to the author's mental definition of the term we can't really quibble successfully.
It is just an easy narrative trope to throw if you are a lazy journalist having to write an article.
Braid was a very successful indie game. Even if you don't consider the early games such as Doom as indies, there has been cult games like Uplink way before Braid.
It just arrived at the right time in order to be published on consoles as well (and with the right portable gameplay).
Actually it kind of died out for a bit. During the PS1 and PS2 era, with the introduction of optical media and a push for mainstream quality, low-budget (and hence only moderately profitable) games slowly died out, while high-risk, high-return 'AAA' games dominated. That's not to say that people didn't make independent games at this time but they were rather niche. The Indie movement was in part a rebellion against that.
I am really excited for The Witness. If you ever watch one of Mr Blows interviews on Youtube you will see why. His philosophy about video games is interesting and refreshing. Particularly, his thoughts on establishing a dialogue between the player and developer through small events and patterns in the game is very insightful and inspiring. I'm sure that The Witness will be a very thoughtfully crafted game and I am definitely going to buy it. Mr Blow, if you are reading these comments, I wish you the best of luck with this game.
I'm not sure where to insert this in the comment threads ... this seemed as good a place as any:
I have never played braid, but based on an article I read online when it was released, I bought the soundtrack. It is beautiful. I've probably listened to it over 100 times. Highly recommended.
Jonathan Blow is also passionately into the creation of a new programming language to compete with C++, with an emphasis on performance and ease of use.
I really like his attitude on the turing-complete compile time metaprogramming feature:
'Yes you can shoot yourself in the foot, hang the compiler, and launch missiles at the same time. You're a good programmer or you wouldn't be using this language. So don't do that. If you do, don't do it again.'
That's not always a good attitude to have in software development, but a modern language that backs away from the "wrap us all in bubble wrap" philosophy is refreshing.
Are there any common languages that allow you to do compile time metaprogramming in the language itself? I'd like to write little miniprograms which output source code and get evaluated at compile time. For example:
and then at compile time that would get run and the source could generated would be:
int fib(int n) {
switch(n) {
case 0: return 0;
case 1: return 1;
case 2: return 1;
case 3: return 2;
case 4: return 3;
case 5: return 5;
case 6: return 8;
... etc up to i=29...
default: return fib(n-1) + fib(n-2);
}
}
Learn a Lisp (say, Scheme or Common Lisp). For Lisp family, this is bread and butter. Since the source code itself is at the same time a data structure, you can (and often end up doing it) easily generate code at read time, compile time or run time. The border between those three kind of starts to blur.
Your example could look like this in Common Lisp:
(defun fib (n)
(if (< n 2)
n
(+ (fib (- n 1)) (fib (- n 2)))))
(defmacro spliced-fibs (x n)
`(case ,x
,(map-iota (lambda (v) (list v (fib v))) n)))
(defun hardcoded-fib (num)
(spliced-fibs num 29))
spliced-fibs macro will generate you a full case block at compile time, so the hardcoded-fib will be basically one big switch/case block. map-iota call maps a function over a list of numbers from 0 to n. Note that a macro can call ordinary functions at compile time, which themselves can use other macros, etc. So a lot of code can be used both at compile and run time.
Have a look at D, its metaprogramming facilities are really something.
In particular string mixins will do what you want; they will also do much more, like for instance include external files written in domain specific languages and compile them in native D code; all this is done by the compiler, using language facilities, without external tools.
(These is not some theoretically cool feature; it's used in real world code, like dproto, which compiles protobuf definitions into native code, or HTML templating engines which compile templates to the equivalent of Java servlets)
Common Lisp is one of the languages with the best control over what gets executed at compile-time versus run-time. It also has a syntax which is extremely amenable to this kind of compile-time generation of code.
> allow you to do compile time metaprogramming in the language itself
That feature is called compile-time function evaluation, and there are a bunch of languages that support CTFE[1]. Blow's language has, from what I've seen, the cleanest CTFE syntax and most straightforward usage approach. In terms of what you can use today, check out D[2] (which has multiple competing ways to do CTFE).
Forth has always been able to do this sort of metaprogramming- in fact this approach is how most of the language is built. Constructs and syntax like conditionals, loops and comments are all just normal word definitions and it is easy and commonplace to extend the syntax of the language for a particular program. Forth is often described as "compiled AND interpreted" because "compiling" a program constantly swaps between interpreting pre-existing definitions and building up new definitions and allocations in memory.
To add to the (at this point rather large list), Haxe[0] allows this, although it prefers that you don't use the string-based method (which IIRC the docs, outside of the API reference, don't really mention, but does exist), but instead manipulate an AST-like object defined in its standard library.
It's macro facilities are actually fairly amazing, and allow for a lot of boilerplate code to be generated at compile time (think: the kind of things reflection is used for in other languages).
Sadly, it's a GCed language, so while it's very popular for game development, it's use is mainly in the indie scene, and so it's probably never something I'll use for anything other than a toy.
Are there any common languages that allow you to do compile time metaprogramming in the language itself?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'in the language itself', since isn't all compile-time metaprogramming in the language itself? But this question has an example of computing Fibonacci sequences in C++ templates:
The second part of the question is about how to turn that into a table which can be referenced at runtime, which would seem to be the same as your question.
Plenty of them. You don't even need a special language - with the right build system & build rules, you're more than welcome to have e.g. "make" build your generator, run your generator, and then build your generated code.
I occasionally write C# which writes C# (using .NET APIs to compile it at runtime, typically) and C# in T4 Text Templates which write C# (they integrate nicely into Visual Studio's build process right out of the box.)
Others have said LISP; if you're willing to manipulate ASTs then anything with macros will do (I love scala). If you want it to be more string-oriented then perhaps TCL (not that there's always a compile time per se)
Just to be clear, this is a side project he's pursuing to explore ideas he's been having in language design. As of today, the intent is not to have a final product anytime.
From my experience, its usually mix of different languages. What ships in the final build might be C/C++ with Lua, custom script + some other custom text formats.
Just an example.
Then there is Unity, and plethora of frameworks where you write in some language and then it gets translated into another and there are just too many variations.
There are still games shipped done in Borland Pascal for that matter :)
Tangentially, I hate this phrase. It ignores the fact that there's an opportunity cost to missed shots. If you're imagining the metaphor of a ball game, it's possession (and thus time and position). If you imagine the metaphor of a gun, it's your limited supply of bullets. This exhortation has an implicit assumption of endless resources, which are typically not available in the real world. Of course there are times you should risk things on an uncertain outcome, and be willing to move on to the next opportunity - trying to hold on to a declining situation is often motivated by a sunk-costs fallacy.
But I've heard the 'miss shots you don't take' thing proffered too many times as an excuse for ego-driven, risk-indifferent, and resource-wasting decisions and I'm pretty tired of it. There is a certain sort of person (but I don't men you, parent poster) who comes into a situation, fucks everything up, and then sails off with the excuse of what a bold, visionary risk-taker they are, blaming any obvious failures on the timidity of the team/colleagues. An excess reliance on sports metaphors has become a huge red flag for me in picking the people I work with.
> It ignores the fact that there's an opportunity cost to missed shots.
For the record, Blow has said that he's making the language primarily for his own use. I expect that most of the games he makes in the future will be written in this language.
Yeah, I didn't mean it in the context of this particular discussion - I'm sure Blow knows what he's doing, and there's nothing wrong with trying to go past C++. I dont' disagree with the poster I replied to either - I was just venting my irritation at this increasingly popular but frequently empty truism.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some kids that I need to eject from my lawn :-)
I've followed Jonathan Blow for a while. He has a reputation for being condescending. If you follow him a Twitter then you might come to the same conclusion. But he has given some amazing talks.
I've followed him for a while and I think it might be a little more complicated although this is definitely how it might come across to the average person. He is blunt, and seemingly socially detached at times, almost in a Carmack-ish way. I don't see this as a bad thing really, just a different type of personality. Most of the best programmers I have known have this kind of personality.
Also, as mentioned his new language is definitely worth checking out. Yes, a language is only as good as its adoption/tools/history, but I definitely think C++ needs a challenger and not many people are in the position where they can risk taking on such a thing. Since money is becoming an issue, I hope he tries to fund this language somehow.
I've found his Twitter very frustrating to follow sometimes, but I also learn a ton from the things he links to and talks about. For example, I'm certainly not in the anti-OO camp, but his perspective keeps me on my toes and has been informing my programming decisions to a degree. He also seems like a good person in general — just one who happens to be an old school programmer with a very specific view on how things should be done. (As are many other game developers, I've been discovering!) People are complex and multifaceted, and you don't have to like every part of them. It's clear that he's a visionary and a fantastic game designer, and that he's been in the trenches for a while, so he's worth listening to for those reasons alone.
Anyway, it's kind of weird talking about jblow when I know he'll be reading this. Even if he doesn't like us so much anymore. :(
Yeah, I've found that programmers who work a lot in C++ are a different breed from those who tend to work with higher level and GC'ed languages more. It really boils down to the task at hand I think. There are always going to be people who want explicit control to those who want the system to figure out things for them.
He's probably right. HN has some serious talent around, but it also has as rather core principles a lot of stuff that's deleterious to the kind of understanding that forms the basis of what he considers a good programmer to be.
I have throughout my career tried to maintain a grasp of everything in my stack (I went through a "study the code for HotSpot in-depth" phase that, while I don't regret it, I'm glad is over--though I may be about to start in on MRI...) and I try to make intelligent decisions about when to approach problems at different levels. I see a lot more trend-following and operating off of tribal conventional wisdom than I would like.
Ambitious, creative, but also kind of a jerk IMO who occasionally makes authoritarian but sloppy observations about low-level tech. You're not the only one he rubs the wrong way.
Not that this is any way an obstacle as long as he succeeds here. But if he really went all in for this game, well, I wouldn't do it that way (unless my name was Derek Smart that is). I'd pocket $1M of my ill-gotten and play the lottery with the rest, knowing there was a backup plan. I hope he has a backup plan. I can't say I like the guy, but I do like what he's doing.
Of course he comes across as condescending. He dismisses pretty much every opinion contrary to his, and while he created 1 good game in his career, I personally wouldn't trust him when it comes to knowing good engineering principles. He's creating a language that brings nothing new to game development, while dissing pretty much everything else that has been done. He's also made an ass of himself at least as many times as Phil Fish.
Contrast to someone like John Carmack, who is a legend, has achieved more in his career than most people ever will (some of the first FPS games, if not the first, pioneered so much technology, is launching rockets into space!), yet is still open minded enough to try new things, like rewriting some of his old games in Haskell and applying FP principles to game design. Oh, and John Carmack is humble as hell, considering what he's done.
>>I've been following Jonathan Blow for a while now. He has a reputation for being condescending. If you follow him a Twitter then you might come to the same conclusion.
I think that's neither here nor there in the context of this article.
I am a Jonathan Blow fan and want to encourage people to watch his talks. He's not nearly as antagonistic as Phil Fish but does say things that rub people the wrong way. Please don't interpret my message as being offensive.
He sure talks a lot, considering he made one game so far. I guess it was a good game if people like it (judging by scores on metacritic only), but I'd need a bit more of gravity around his body of work before listening his opinion on, well, anything. Compare that to Carmack for example - who didn't make games as a designer, but has a strong enough presence over the years actually doing stuff that carries weight. NB, I'm not putting him down, I'm just not seeing how his opinion is of any importance so far. And it seems he has opinion on everything and anything and is vocal about it.
Interesting story, but I'd hardly call this "sacrificing his fortune." The title led me to believe that perhaps there was some sort of looming intellectual property or non-compete battle -- instead, he just spent his money in development efforts for his next game.
That said, the game looks great -- and I'm sure he'll be very successful with this one, too.
Yes, this could be more accurately described as "investing his fortune", or if you want to focus more on the risk (as game development is a risky business), "bet his fortune."
Loved Braid, quite interested in trying out The Witness; hope it doesn't take too long to come to a platform I can play it on, as I have neither a Windows machine, nor any consoles, nor an iOS device.
I think part of the reason they consider he is "betting" or "risking" his fortune, is because it probably has a lot more risks than a "simple investment". i.e. he's not taking his money and putting it in a Fidelity investment account, he's spending money to create a game that might very well not sell more than a few copies and not make the money back.
I guess people see him as "winning the lottery" with Braid, so now spending that "lottery money" is seen as a foolish move. However I think that spending/investing your hard-earned money in something you enjoy (developing games) is the best investment one can do, even if you do lose all your money.
I agree, but on the other hand you have examples of possibly richer and more famous developers that in order to make their next game decided to pull off millionaire kickstarters, when they probably could have financed it with their own money if they decided to do so, so the guy deserves some respect for that.
I think that the traditional investment mindset is suboptimal for most people. Especially the young.
For example, the advice to start early on a pension is commonplace. But the young often have low disposable income, and this cuts in to other possible uses of money that have far more return on low amounts of capital.
For example, taking a few months out to study in a different field. Building up a relocation fund so that you can move to a higher paying area. Working towards a property deposit. Buying cars outright instead of borrowing money to finance them.
Most of those have a far better return than a few percent per annum. It's just not clearly quantifiable. And that's not even going in to the riskier things like starting a business.
I always sort of wonder about stories like this, where fairly established game-devs have to rely on Kickstarter, or on their own funds to develop games.
Seems like someone like Blow should be able to attract some investors.
He likely could. I'd speculate a couple of reasons for not taking investment:
1) Control over IP and final product. While some investors would likely give free reign to continue as he has been, identifying and coming to an agreement with them might seem time consuming, which leads to:
2) Doing business takes time, he may feel that time is better spent finishing the game.
There's a good chance there are more nuanced details to his decision to borrow instead of seek investment like project progress and terms of his loan.
Well, I think the thing you're missing is that not everybody wants investors... Blow has actively worked to help other indie developers stay independent.
Most game investors these days are mostly looking for free to play games that have a business plan beyond selling copies in (digital stores). He's very against that type of games and games as businesses instead of artform in general.
You probably just have to accept that pure puzzle games aren't for you. It's the same for me, and Braid is the game that made me accept that fact. I could see it was great, but I couldn't enjoy it past a certain point. No need to be negative, just move on and play games you enjoy.
Just to correct you, Braid didn't succeed because it was a "pure puzzle game." Braid has an absolutely incredible story and milieu -- stunning art and music with a sad, beautiful ambiance. It helped that the puzzles are great, but I'm sure many crappy mobile games have puzzles. Braid has soul.
You might as well say that Portal succeeded because of its puzzles. I mean, Portal IS a puzzle game even more than Braid is -- but what matters is the atmosphere, the immersion, and the story. Why not compare Lord of the Rings to a hiking manual while we're oversimplifying art.
Not sure why you were downvoted — this is pretty true. At the very least, it's hard to argue that the art in Braid was absolutely top-notch for platformers at the time.
I also have to say, though, that Braid was remarkably fluid for a puzzle game. What I mean is that instead of having to stand in one place and suss out each puzzle in your head, you were compelled to experiment with the game world, internalize the rules, and eventually intuit each solution. In the end, I believe I only had to "work out" a handful of puzzles in the entire game. (Contrast this to a puzzle game like Sokoban, where you pretty much have to logic out each screen. I hate those kinds of games!)
With that said, it looks like The Witness is going to be a much more cerebral puzzler.
I completely agree. I miss playing more games like that.
Some 6 months ago I decided to learn how to draw pixel art to make one myself. I should have a playable demo out in a couple of weeks. You can track my progress on my twitter account (@mbabuskov).
That's 677 total puzzles. But remember, it says that there are in total 11 areas, of which you need to complete 7 or 8. And it says that to complete an area, you don't necessarily need to solve every puzzle within it.
So let's say you need to solve, on average, 75% of the puzzles in an are to beat it. And that you need to solve 7 out of the 11 areas. That gives you (677 * 7/11) *.75 / 40 or about 8 puzzles per hour.