next »

[Al King]

@Alec: Your stance is interesting. I can't really pinpoint what you are trying to say? Are you for, or against indies here?

He's against indies turning themselves into martyrs, and figures that the judges may well take into account Q-games privileged position anyway. Or so I gather.

[Alec]

jon is on ps3, but he wasnt on ps3 when he entered.
he's on ps3 BECAUSE he entered (well, partially. that all the awesome).

So Jon should never be allowed to enter the IGF again?

[Tr00jg]

jon is on ps3, but he wasnt on ps3 when he entered.
he's on ps3 BECAUSE he entered (well, partially. that all the awesome).

So Jon should never be allowed to enter the IGF again?

The way I see it, not if his "next game" already has a publisher...

This is all too vague. Someone should set definite boundaries as to what constitutes an indie. An indie, being someone who can enter IGF.

[Alec]

This is all too vague. Someone should set definite boundaries as to what constitutes an indie. An indie, being someone who can enter IGF.

I don't know, I don't think the only thing that defines an indie is whether they've had publishing deals or not.

I'd hope to see Jon Mak, J. Blow, Fish and the like submit games to the IGF again, even if they get crazy success. If they are still creating interesting games, I don't see why they should be barred.

I don't think the IGF's sole goal is to set up developers with publishing deals, its also a showcase for great indie games. I'd rather see the average quality bar for IGF entries rise through the competition of awesome developers, than kick out indies who are lucky enough to get deals.

[ChrisFranklin]

Really it sounds to me like the problem here is less of a "What's indie/what's not indie" debate and more of a disagreement about what the IGF should aspire to do.  On one hand, some people want the IGF to be a place where non-signed indies can get the world to see the fruit of their labor and potentially land a lucrative contract.  By this logic, Pixel Junk Racers shouldn't be allowed in because it already has a contract for distribution on a major console platform; something most indies would die for.

On the other, some people want the IGF to be a place to celebrate all that indies can achieve, including highlighting the works of some of the more polished and well financed developers.  It'd be a place to show off the best of our best, from 18 year old bedroom indies to professional developers doing something awesome in their spare time.  Here Pixel Junk Racers should totally be allowed to be submitted - I have no idea how it plays, it's clearly a polished and professional product.

[Keops]

In before the debate...

Let's just play some games and chill out In case some people needs to vent out their revolutionary ideas on what's indie and what's not, check this uber thread right here: http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=7.0

Cheers!

[fish]

i think to be eligible for IGF, you should:

-be under 6 feet tall
-wear glasses
-not own a couch
-be atleat part asian
-live in a basement
-eat seaweed
-grow a mustache
-sing showtunes

my 2 cents

[Alec]

It'd be a place to show off the best of our best, from 18 year old bedroom indies to professional developers doing something awesome in their spare time.

Its interesting, cause the bar for entry is so low. All you have to do is pay a $100 and you submit whatever you want, even if it doesn't run or crashes randomly or has the worst graphics in the history of games or is a completely amateur rip off of some mainstream game. I'm not really sure what goes through some people's heads when they think about submitting. But I think they should still be allowed, no matter how terrible they are. I just don't see how you could enforce any kind of rules on the submission process.

The real filter is the judges.

[Keops]

i think to be eligible for IGF, you should:

-be under 6 feet tall
-wear glasses
-not own a couch
-be atleat part asian
-live in a basement
-eat seaweed
-grow a mustache
-sing showtunes

my 2 cents

Wow, wouldn't that be incredibly restrictive? Do you need to comply with all of those or some of them will suffice? XD

[Tr00jg]

I don't know, I don't think the only thing that defines an indie is whether they've had publishing deals or not.

With that I agree...

Well, to me IGF should be a place where nobodies can show their wonderful creation to the world and also praise the salted indies (who has had deals and the like).

So then indeed, PJR should then be allowed in.

I guess its just all about celebrating the truly creative spirit. I honestly don't know where to draw the line.

[Michaël Samyn]

Maybe there should be an extra category in the IGF. Next to Visual Art, Audio, Innovation and Technical Excellence, perhaps there should be a Most Indie Game Award?

I don't know much about what has been discussed on these forums before, but I know that we, Tale of Tales, consider ourselves "indie" only because we don't seem to be able to become "dependent". At least not on our terms. We've tried to get funding from publishers at some point but they just wouldn't have us. This forced us to reconsider our approach, and to try and make games for lower budgets that are distributed online, e.g. To us it feels like we're only indie because we failed at being anything else (then again, maybe publishers didn't want us because we were too indie to begin with).

Anyway, on topic.
I understand that the IGF serves as a platform for small developers to promote their work. I personally wish that the distinction between indie and non-indie would have a bit more to do with the content and the nature of the games (I still dream of "jeux d'auteur"). But well made games (which always require higher budgets, and thus some form of "dependency") do raise the general profile of the IGF. And this is good for the promotion of the small games as well.

[Musenik]

On one hand, some people want the IGF to be a place where non-signed indies can get the world to see the fruit of their labor...

On the other, some people want the IGF to be a place to celebrate all that indies can achieve, including highlighting the works of some of the more polished and well financed developers.

Maybe the trick would be to make those separate categories. The ones they have now are sorta 'traditional tweaked' but lacking. There isn't even one for writing/story. Like audio, dynamic text/speech is just as much a part of computer games as is dynamic music.

I find it a little weird to judge schmups vs. interactive fiction vs. MMOGs... sorry, I digress.

[gummikana]

I'm not participating the original discussion of what is indie and what isn't. But I do have one suggestion about the categories, that might solve the problem with high-end indies and lo-end indies.

I kinda wish there would be a separate freeware category in IGF, because I think the festival is missing some of the best freeware games out there (Knytt Stories comes to mind immediately).

I think the reason why most freeware developers shy away from the competition now, is the cost. Not the 100$ entry cost (which is a bit high for someone who isn't making anything out of their game), but if you make it to the finals the cost of traveling to San Francisco is a bit too high for a typical freeware developer. Also the competition doesn't seem really fair for a freeware developer, when you're going with zero budget against games like PixelJunk Racers 

[PoV]

I'd imagine it's an attitude thing as well.  If a freeware game really is the shit compared to everything else, then it should be worth the $100+travel, to not only showcase it, but to "sell it" in person to whatever publishing and aggregation companies are content hunting.  If you have no monetary interest in the title, then you don't need the IGF.

With monetary interest, indie games is budget game development 2.0.  Freeware has traditionally not needed public showcase to "get out there".  The point of showcasing at the IGF is getting in front industry professionals.  Either to net you a job, publicity, or a publishing/distribution deal.  TIGSource, Tim's Independent Gaming, and every blog/forum/coverdisk that pimps indie games pushes freeware just fine.  IGF wont get your game in front of soccer moms.

[jph wacheski]

"I don't think the only thing that defines an indie is whether they've had publishing deals or not."

 Well no that IS the thing that defines an INDEPENDANT game,. It gets no PUBLISHER money,. that is the meaning of the words.  All the rest,. if this game was developed by someone who WAS an indie, or we just think this game is too cool, so we want it in the show,. ect. are really just debasing the concept of Indie Games.  If you are already published by Nintendo and Sony then you are no indie.  Personaly I just can not afford to enter,. well I cant really afford much of anything I have been living on credit cards for months,. I guess even in the area if indies everyone will have access to different resources,. . would be nice if there existed a level playing field somewhere, well that is pipe-dream eh.  I just think if you call yourself the 'Independent' Games Festival games funded by gigantic world wide corporation's (Nintendo, Sony) money SHOULD be excluded no mater how low-fi, retro, or 'indie' they may appear.  As that is just taking the place of some one who really is indie.

[Alex May]

Well the distinction is this: was the game developed independently?

With PJR the grey area is in whether the studio's non-independent products could be seen to have enabled the existence of the game. Not the fact that it's been published. The game was developed, if we are to believe the story, independently of funding. Therefore it is an independent game. The fact that it was published later is not relevant, just the same as if an IGF winner later finds a publishing deal, the award given to that winner is not revoked.

[Melly]

Well, I guess that's the end of this discussion. *rides off into the sunset*

[Michaël Samyn]

Defining independent games as those whose developement has been funded by publishers, seems like a very clean way of making the distinction. But games are always funded, in one way or other. If not by personal wealth, then by girlfriends, boyfriends or parents. Or by arts funding, in our case. So there is always a level of "dependency".

Then again, as far as I can tell, "funded by a publisher" is often not as straightforward as it may sound. In many cases, publishers give the developer a loan that needs to be paid back from the proceeds of the game. This does not differ that much from a loan you would get at the bank or money from mortgaging your house. Or, indeed, money from the credit card companies...

[Alex May]

There is a difference with respect to rights though - you haven't entered into any contracts regarding the IP of the game with the bank, there's no royalty deal or what-have-you. I agree that there's dependency there, but the developer is still free to develop the game on their own terms (within economic reason), rather than develop the game largely on someone else's terms. VC money is dodgy ground as they may want to get their hands dirtier than the bank but not as dirty as the publisher... my knowledge, such as it is, ends there though.

The point is a publisher is much more hands-on and you lose a lot of the development independence you'd have with other funding by going with a game publisher.

[PoV]

Yep.  VC and general investment is usually for a cut of the profits, unlike a bank loan or grant.  The investors technically have a say, but tend not to because they're not the experts.  IP ownership really is the important question at this point.  Ideally, the developer controls the IP entirely, without the need to pay any residuals for spin offs and sequels.  The investors are thusly investing in the product, not the brand.

Are you indie though?  Sometimes you are, and sometimes you're not.  Depends whom you ask.  So who the heck wants to be indie if you have to conform to everybody's personal definition?  That sounds just as bad the infamous "not seeking a publisher/distribution deal because you don't want them to screw it up".  Screw that I say.

I think for most of us, what we want is to make something special.  That's not indie games though.  That's more than indie games.  We just happen to be doing it with small teams and low budgets, fitting us in the majority of definitions.