next »

[eiyukabe]

Do you consider independent developers that sell their games or profit in some way (instead of giving them away for free) as part of the "Game Industry"?

"Industry -- the people or companies engaged in a particular kind of commercial enterprise"

Just wondering what the consensus is, conversationally speaking. If you make a game and profit from it, even from just one sale, are you "in the Game Industry"?

[TeeGee]

Yes.

[ANtY]

Of course, why not?

[MattG]

hell ya. THE BEST PART of the games biz is the indies. Unless all you want are annual sports and FPS rehashes, indies are the LIFE of the gamesindustry.

[eiyukabe]

Of course, why not?

No reason not to that I can think of

I try to tell younger people who are trying to get into the industry the old fashioned way (go to school, intern at a game company, get hired by EA or something) to try and make an indie hit while they are in school and try to avoid the larger companies instead; I'm not sure this route is as widely known to industry hopefuls, but it seems to be becoming more common.

EDIT: Actually, no, something is bugging me about it. We need a way (at least I do) to distinguish between behemoth corporations and sincere developers. I usually refer to the "Mainstream Industry", but would that include Mojang since they are more successful now than many companies I would consider part of the "Mainstream Industry"?

Perhaps "Old Industry" vs "New Industry"? I guess "Mainstream" vs "Indie" could work, but again, "mainstream" is not the opposite of "indie"; one simply measures the spread of a game, the other describes how it was made.

I am confusing myself again  But I need a way to fill in these blanks: "I intend to see the _____ industry torn to shreds and replaced by the _____ industry so more sincere games can be made and more money can go to the creatives that deserve it instead of the suits that steal it."

[Nix]

When I say "the industry" I'm usually referring to AAA

[MattG]

AAA according to who?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

the way i think of it is like this:

there are several game industries; retail console games, PC games (which are primarily sold as downloads now but are still in retail in some places), console downloadable games, mobile phone games, arcade games, flash games, and others

indies are a large part of PC games and console downloadable games, and dominate flash games and mobile phone games, but are a smaller / almost non-existent part of retail console games and arcade games

[zovirl]

Just wondering what the consensus is, conversationally speaking. If you make a game and profit from it, even from just one sale, are you "in the Game Industry"?

I'm struggling to think of a situation where this distinction would matter. Are you worried that:

A) You'll casually say "yeah, I'm in the game industry" and someone will call you out like "no you aren't, you made $5 from a shitty flash game. That doesn't count as in the industry."

B) You'll lose your indie cred if you make money, and someone will call you out like "Yo, he ain't indie. He made $5 from that game. He's part of the Industry now. Down with the Man!"

?

[AzraelKans]

Of course I do.

I think it all depends on your definition of "independent" for me, an independent developer is a profesional (as in gets paid for his work) developer or developer studio that is not owned by another company, as in is not a "part" of a larger company. therefore "Independent".

Since is not owned by a larger company, this gives the studio much more freedom to experiment and create new ips, platforms and mechanics (sometimes it forces it a bit too in order to stand out) and that is why usually this is where more creative games come from. not only they are a part but a very important part of the industry.

[eiyukabe]

Just wondering what the consensus is, conversationally speaking. If you make a game and profit from it, even from just one sale, are you "in the Game Industry"?

I'm struggling to think of a situation where this distinction would matter. Are you worried that:

Me? No, I'm not worried about anything, and I will explain.

A) You'll casually say "yeah, I'm in the game industry" and someone will call you out like "no you aren't, you made $5 from a shitty flash game. That doesn't count as in the industry."

I am in the Game Industry. I work at a company called Darkside Game Studios. They are independent but I am not because I work for them. I have indie experience from two projects I worked on last year (well, two that I finished), and am still making games on the side which I may or may not sell. I will probably go full indie in a few years if I can make it work. This is not for "indie cred", that is a ridiculous pursuit. This is simply because I feel my life is pointless working for other people and I want to create the games that I want to create. If those are successful, I don't care how people label me as long as I make games that people enjoy.

B) You'll lose your indie cred if you make money, and someone will call you out like "Yo, he ain't indie. He made $5 from that game. He's part of the Industry now. Down with the Man!"

I don't have indie "cred" to lose as I am in the mainstream industry and have not released an independent project of any measure of success. I also frankly think the term "indie" is falling apart, if people view it as a badge of "cred" instead of a means of making games that suits them. I prefer to make the divide into the "sincere" and the "insincere". For the sincere, I put developers ranging from Blow to Blizzard -- you can be sincere if you are big or small, indie or not. I fear that where the Game Industry Proper has started making insincere games for money, the Indie Scene has a temptation to start making insincere games for the currency of credibility. Just make the game, make it to make others happy, make it to make yourself happy (inescapable from making others happy), and don't worry about _any_ extrinsic rewards such as money or fame. Well, that's what I think.

To answer your question, though... I actually already answered why the distinction is important to me:

I am confusing myself again  But I need a way to fill in these blanks: "I intend to see the _____ industry torn to shreds and replaced by the _____ industry so more sincere games can be made and more money can go to the creatives that deserve it instead of the suits that steal it."

So what do you think? I want to see the "insincere" industry torn to shreds and replaced by the "sincere" industry? Sorry to ask you what it is I want; of course I know what I want, I'm just not good with words, and if I use words that no one understands then I just as well not be talking.

[zovirl]

I am in the Game Industry. I work at a company called Darkside Game Studios. They are independent but I am not because I work for them...I feel my life is pointless working for other people and I want to create the games that I want to create.

Ah so you work for a studio that is independent, in that they don't answer to a publisher, but you yourself do not feel independent, as you don't have the freedom to do whatever you want. Makes sense.

Definitions of indie that I have seen (like you, I think some of these are bullshit):

• Not attached to a publisher: I think this was the origin of the "indie" term in both the music world and the game world, but it doesn't seem terribly useful.
• Not AAA: see above.
• Free to make whatever games they want: I like this definition because it captures the freedom that allows indie games to have such vitality and innovation.
• Small: this seems less useful than the "freedom" definition, but it is true that small companies are often scrappy and willing to take crazy risks, which adds innovation.
• Not successful (i.e. poor): Label anyone who gets rich as a "sellout". This seems like jealousy. I suppose there is a risk that once serious money is involved people will be afraid to take risks, or won't be forced to take risks, and the vitality/innovation will dry up.
• Gamemaker + 8-bit graphics/audio: I guess this is like how "indie rock" used to mean "not mainstream" but now means a very specific sound. I think it is bullshit, and sort of annoying ("Yes, we get it, you think 8-bit retro games are ironic and/or nostalgic.")

I would be surprised if this was the first "What's the definition of indie?" thread

[eiyukabe]

Yeah, it seems like "Indie" is tricky because it is incomplete by itself; "Independent" from what? I suppose from one perspective, none of us are independent from the entire world as we wouldn't have had the resources to survive alone, and we wouldn't even exist were it not for our parents. In that sense, I actually kind of find dependence romantic; I certainly cherish my friends and family, and as long as I can trust those I am dependent on I can be happy.

However, there is a more sinister dependence that we naturally strive to get away from; the Big Publishers, but more broadly, any kind of business relationship where we are behaving more from a fear of losing our jobs than a pride in our jobs. It is negative reenforcement versus positive reenforcement. One way we are acting out of fear, the other way we are acting out a natural desire to use our talents to bring joy to the world -- and I strongly believe that it is the latter in which we can make the best games. That is actually something I want to change about the "industry", and one reason I need to know where everyone stands on what I mean by "industry". For example, when I say I want to bring the "industry" down, I want to make sure I'm not offending independent developers who might then come back and say "Oh, you don't like game development for a profit? Then why are you even posting here!" But of _course_ I am okay with developers profiting from their work, I would be a hypocrite if I wasn't! I just think that in the Mainstream Industry, there are a lot of non-developers profiting more off of our work than we are -- and that I am _not_ okay with! I believe that we can move toward a greater civilization if we can find ways to minimize the risks and reverse the power structure that has come up. I believe the Indie movement is at its strongest and is only growing stronger, and it gives me hope for the future of the artform and its practitioners -- but I feel that there is a lot left to do to free the artists from the artificial constraints that the publishers and platform holders have developed. True that they help connect us to our audiences, but they have gone beyond their responsibilities and have turned the gaming community into a commodity of attention, which they then dole out to us as they feel needed (look at XBLA Super Meat Boy for a sad example of what can happen when you work hard for a platform holder that doesn't feel you are worth the consumer attention that they feel entitled to control: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6348/postmortem_team_meats_super_meat_.php).

Also, this is a fantastic read for how much power middlemen (platform holders) can have: http://www.lostgarden.com/2011/03/gdc-2011-game-of-platform-power.html. An aside, but I like to point to it as often as I can .

Anyway, sorry to be so wordy, I just really need to make sure I am using the right words as more and more I am finding I must rally verbally for what I believe in. Perhaps Greg Costikyan said it best: "Death to the Game Industry, Long Live Games".

[tametick]

• Not successful (i.e. poor): Label anyone who gets rich as a "sellout". This seems like jealousy. I suppose there is a risk that once serious money is involved people will be afraid to take risks, or won't be forced to take risks, and the vitality/innovation will dry up.

Actually you might be less prone to take chances if you have no money and really need a success to keep you afloat.

[MattG]

I think its ok to make a ton of money and keep the indie creative freedom and spirit and blaze new trails and stay independent

[eiyukabe]

I think you need two things before you can take risks:

1.) financial security
2.) a sincere desire

This could explain why large companies have a lot of financial security but don't take risks. It's because they don't really care about games as anything but a source of profit. Conversely, a sincere indie developer with little money has to avoid taking risks so they can feed themselves. In order to really push the artform forward in terms of innovation and/or quality, you kind of need both.

[copernicus]

I don't consider indies part of the Game Industry.  Industry makes me think of publishing companies and retailers.  I usually divide games/developers into two categories: dependent and independent.  Dependent developers are paid to make a game, independent developers aren't paid to make a game.  For example: I wasn't paid to make F-Copernicus 1 so it's an independent game.

The dependent/independent distinction can break down because some of the content in a game might have been made by someone who was paid to do it, while other content wasn't.  For example: the programmer (who built the game for free) pays someone to make music and art for his game.

I do recognize the concept of credibility.  Some independent developers make games in an attempt to get a publishing deal, or to use as a resume to land a job at a development studio.  These people aren't independent enough for me--they're just dependent wannabes.  I give them indie cred for their game, but I don't give them indie cred for their goal.

Credibility is one of the reasons I made F-Copernicus 1 by myself.  If you haven't finished a game by yourself I wouldn't consider you an independent developer.  Developer is singular.  Even if a game was made by only to 2 people I would consider it a small development company instead of an independent developer.

I think the increasing size of development teams is how the industry lost its freedom.  The more people there are, the more money is needed so they can all get paid.  Development companies didn't have the money, so they had to sell out to publishers.  If we keep it small we can survive.  We can keep our freedom.