next »

[Tuba]

"Don't think we're going to be all indies for the next five years - these things go in cycles, just like in the music business. You have a time where punk is big, and then you have times like now where everything is manufactured.

"Enjoy this time, because inevitably it will only last a short period."

"Here's the thing: walk through any hotel lobby at GDC and look at people's name badges. This morning at breakfast I saw three angel investors talking to indies. They're saying, 'take my money! I want to invest in your company!'

more at: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/455493/molyneux-enjoy-the-indie-craze-because-it-wont-last

So, Peter Molyneux is saying that the whole indie scene today remind him of the 80's when small teams like his own were making games however they want, but eventually everyone got big.

I can see the paralel, and I can see some indies getting to big to remain indies, but I think the situation is very different.


Well... discuss.

[SundownKid]

If this is true, then where is my venture capital!

But seriously, there are far too many indies for this to make sense. The indie game is a permanent fact of life now, just like the novel or music, the barrier to entry has been lowered so much that people don't have to worry about its cost if they don't want to.

[Christian Knudsen]

If he means indie as in a genre, then he's probably right and people will eventually tire of certain shared characteristics of these games. If he means indie as in people making games independently of publishers or anybody else that might own the rights, then I can't see why that would come to an end. His only argument seems to be that independent game developers will be unable to resist the lure of venture capitalists. Huh?

[JWK5]

Except indie games are not like punk, they are like independently created music. Independent musicians still persist today and with probably a much wider audience thanks to the internet (places like Last FM are a good place to look them up and listen for free).

What won't last is the "indie scene", like any scene it will die down (though not necessarily out). All the popular sayings, trends, tropes, etc. associated with it will lose their novelty and it will become less exploitable (both commercially and socially). Some odd years later it will spring up again and merge into the latest trends. That's just how these things go.


EDIT: On the other hand, I don't think that is a bad thing. I think communal artistic tendencies go through a necessary birth-life-death-rebirth cycle in order to grow. If it just kept trudging along indefinitely it'd just wind up repeating itself over and over (think pop music).

[Muz]

There's certain elements in "indie" that I don't like. A lot of indies think it's about appealing to nostalgia - deliberately bad pixel art (like RotMG and Habit RPG), bad controls, shitty design and charging people for buggy pre-alpha releases. A lot of people deliberately go for a raw "indie" feel. Indie games are selling near the same prices as many non-AAA major studio games.

He's not really talking about indie as a way of making games. But "indie" as a brand. It works like "organic" or "natural" food.

[Richard Kain]

His only argument seems to be that independent game developers will be unable to resist the lure of venture capitalists. Huh?

I don't think we're going to see that come to pass. Partially because this industry has been around long enough that we're starting to see that trend wrapping in on itself. Now there are highly experienced developers who have been in the industry for a decade or more who are abandoning the traditional big-budget publishing model in favor of going "indie."

The desire to "go indie" isn't just about the possibility of a Minecraft-level windfall. While there are a certain number of opportunists, both from new and experienced developers, there are a considerably greater number who are more interested in intangible benefits. The power of self-determination is a compelling incentive for anyone desiring creative agency. Many new developers look up to that ideal as something to strive for. Many experienced developers look to it as a right that they have been denied for too long. One of the most significant aspects of "indie" development is that you have a say in the project you are working on.

We are going to see what has come to be known as "indie" development change. There's no avoiding that. But it is unrealistic to assume that it is going to be subsumed by larger entities just as it was in the past. The circumstances and culture of today are significantly divergent from what directed the industry of the past.

[InfiniteStateMachine]

If he thinks that the indie world right now involves a lot of investors throwing money at every developer I'd venture to guess he may have lost perspective from being Peter Molyneux for so long.

[Udderdude]

Kickstarter is going to ensure indie sticks around for a lot longer.  I don't see it dying down any time soon.  Maybe if the only option were angel investors, but let's face it, that hardly ever happens to begin with.

I don't see "Indie as a brand" dying out any time soon either.  It's far too strong and is still a good way for developers to seperate themselves from larger teams with bigger budgets and more corporate oversight.

[JWK5]

Kind of like "alternative" music?

[s0]

if we're going to make the music comparison "indie music" as a brand has been going strong for more than 20 years (possibly even 30). im pretty sure the last vampire weekend album sold a ton.

[Türbo Bröther]

If these things come in cycles then it's only a matter of time before Peter Molyneux eventually becomes relevant again.

[RyanB]

So, Peter Molyneux is saying that the whole indie scene today remind him of the 80's when small teams like his own were making games however they want, but eventually everyone got big.

I can see the paralel, and I can see some indies getting to big to remain indies, but I think the situation is very different.


Well... discuss.

The reason for boom-bust cycles is because too few bets are made with too small of a bankroll.

If you went into a casino with $100,000,000 and played a game where you believed you had an edge, then made 25 bets of $4,000,000, you could have an amazing run of good luck and make a massive profit.  You could also have a run of very bad luck and lose a lot of your bankroll.

But, if you took that same $100,000,000 and made 2500 bets of $40,000 in a game you have an edge in then it would be virtually impossible not to make money.  Reducing your risk in this way also reduces the possibility of making a huge profit from a short-term streak of luck.

Molyneux and the large publishers are from the world of making huge bets and hoping they don't run into bad luck.  They make promises of huge profits but that is only possible with an equal risk of losses.  Investors like this because they want to make double-digit profits every year and then hope to bail just before the bad luck starts.

Indies, by spreading the money out, are not likely to make the huge profits promised by the large publishers.  But, they do offer a sustainable eco-system of good profits with minimal overall risk.  They are not exposed to the boom-bust cycle that Molyneux and the big-bet culture create for themselves.

Sure, individual indies will come and go, but the eco-system will remain healthy.

[Sved]

Lots of designers and managers are leaving their AAA lead position to start their own studios. They have experience, studio practice, extended network and are very likely to become 'middle-class' indies, in between the one-man teams and the AAA studios.

[Dragonmaw]

He's just mad nobody liked Godus.

[Türbo Bröther]

Naw, he's just mad.

[bsp]

If these things come in cycles then it's only a matter of time before Peter Molyneux eventually becomes relevant again.

ouch

[Türbo Bröther]

They're counting up but I'm still counting the days.

[InfiniteStateMachine]

If these things come in cycles then it's only a matter of time before Peter Molyneux eventually becomes relevant again.

lmaooo I'm dying

[Zaphos]

best molyneux interview: http://kotaku.com/the-shortest-peter-molyneux-interview-youll-ever-need-1547610829

[Pinqu!]

If he means indie as in a genre, then he's probably right and people will eventually tire of certain shared characteristics of these games. If he means indie as in people making games independently of publishers or anybody else that might own the rights, then I can't see why that would come to an end. -cut-

This is exactly what I was gonna say
To me indie means that everybody can create and share games a lot easier then lets say 10 years ago. It's not so much about making money but about making awesome games