next »

[Peevish]

In this here interview Dylan Cuthbert addresses some of the PixelJunk controversy. His perspective makes me feel a lot better about the whole debate, honestly. It seems he still feels part of the community, and has an indie spirit, and his affiliation with Sony has basically been some highly-paid contract work.

But I'm still not sold on the idea that rather wealthy companies really need or deserve IGF. Maybe there should just be an income cap? If your company has more than X scads of dollars you can't feasibly call yourself an independent? I think that would be a sensible solution that would untwist our collective knickers.

[GregWS]

Simon Carless' main point is that team size can't be a factor, because some teams in IGF (that no one was complaining about) were larger than the PixelJunk crew.

I'm fine saying that it's not about team size, but there does still need to be a determining factor.

I'm strongly in favor of saying that games which a good amount of exposure shouldn't be at the IGF.  PixelJunk certainly doesn't need the exposure, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Flower wasn't entered, right?  And most people here consider that indie, but it's got exposure, so it doesn't need to be at the IGF.

EDIT: and I'm fine with Cuthbert wanting to be part of the indie community, but I think he needs to really be a part of it, and not just saying that.  Maybe enter a TIGS compo in his spare time?  No one's stopping him...

[konjak]

It's not a whole argument, but I'd say that winning over an established team says something about your skills, too.

[Xander]

I really thought the topic was the title of a new Pixeljunk game. I'm an idiot.

I don't really know where I stand on this. On the one hand it doesn't really matter that the Pixeljunk games were entered in because ultimately the judges still picked the more 'indie' titles (Less Sony Backed I guess is a more apt term). At the same time, I get the feeling that they don't really need to be in the IGF at all. Like Petri said, the IGF can change a persons life, and if you already have highly-paid contract work from Sony then do you really need to win the IGF? or even participate?

It maybe unfair and selfish of me, but I just can't shake the feeling that Eden was a game that was so well appreciated/acknowledged that it didn't need to be in the IGF at all, and any time it spent there simply detracted attention from the other titles that need it more, or even preventing less accomplished but more 'underprivaleged' indie titles from appearing.

I do like them, I mean it isn't like Introversion claiming to be 'the last of the bedroom programmers' a while back (Edit: Actually that appears to still be their motto. That still annoys me), but I just can't see it from their perspective.

[Valter]

I'm not really sure I care about this. Are there specific rewards for winning the IGF awards? From what I know, it's more like the TIGS compos, really. It's just about setting a deadline so you can get to work on that game you've always meant to be doing.

[increpare]

there's prizemoney, and there's also the not-at-all inconsiderable media and industry exposure one gets.

[GregWS]

Not just prize money, but thousands of dollars in prize money. 

[konjak]

I won't care until it's a MILLION

[Corpus]

Valter, the grand prize is $30,000. That is a lot of money. As stephen said, there's also all the exposure you get, usually (I believe) helping to secure the winning developers some variety of publishing deal, if they don't have one already.

Maybe there should just be an income cap? If your company has more than X scads of dollars you can't feasibly call yourself an independent? I think that would be a sensible solution that would untwist our collective knickers.

World of Goo made a shit-tonne of money, but those guys are still indie. This isn't the answer.

[battlerager]

I won't care until it's a BILLION

[Captain_404]

Maybe there should be a time since release clause. Recently released and unreleased titles would have no problem getting in, but titles such as Eden, which has been out for nearly nine months (I think ...does that sound right?) wouldn't be able to enter.

I don't think the problem is that these guys aren't indie, it's just that they entered a well-established game. Perhaps if they'd only entered it into the previous year's competition instead there wouldn't be such a ruckus.

[Inane]

9 months? At a < 9 months limit, you wouldn't have been able to enter the last IGF, so you would get screwed out of being able to enter the IGF.

[Türbo Bröther]

(Less Sony Backed I guess is a more apt term)

This. It's not the amount of money that's gone into creating your game that is the factor that decides whether you are indie/underground (however you want to term it) or mainstream it's where that money comes from.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I still think the best way to do it is by whether the game was funded by an outside source that has creative control over a game. In other words, I don't care how large the team size is or how much money went into the game as long as the person making it is also the person who is funding it and is also the person who owns the IP. I don't know the specifics of this particular case, but I'd say if it was funded by someone other than the main developer / IP owner, it isn't independent, otherwise it is.

[Matt Thorson]

I agree that the 'amount of exposure' thing should factor into it.  I feel like IGF should be about giving struggling indies who make great games a fighting chance, not a bunch of successful "indies" patting each other on the back.

(Not that I'm an expert or anything, having never physically been to the ceremony).

[Grif]

Maybe there should be a time since release clause. Recently released and unreleased titles would have no problem getting in, but titles such as Eden, which has been out for nearly nine months (I think ...does that sound right?) wouldn't be able to enter.

I don't think the problem is that these guys aren't indie, it's just that they entered a well-established game. Perhaps if they'd only entered it into the previous year's competition instead there wouldn't be such a ruckus.

What about Cortex Command?

It's been in development for SEVEN YEARS, and available for download for 4-5 now. It's also been entered in IGF 5 times.

[Captain_404]

9 months? At a < 9 months limit, you wouldn't have been able to enter the last IGF, so you would get screwed out of being able to enter the IGF.

I'm not saying there should be a nine months limit, I said that I think Eden has been out for about nine months. Also, that's months since release, not nine months since a polished, playable version. I'd be willing to bet that Eden could have been entered in last year's, I mean there's no way it only took 3 months to develop.

What about Cortex Command?

It's been in development for SEVEN YEARS, and available for download for 4-5 now. It's also been entered in IGF 5 times.

Again, based on final (or latest) release time, not development time. I think reentering the exact same game year after year is a bit silly, but if you've made significant enough changes to the game to where it is arguably a different game from the last, why not allow for reentry? I can't speak to whether cortex command would qualify under such rules, you obviously know more about it then me.

I see nothing wrong with entering "Game (Second Release)" but entering the exact same thing twice is a different matter.

More importantly, as you note, it's "in development", and I think that's what should really count here.


Anyway, just an idea, I should stop defending it lest I begin to take myself too seriously

[Peevish]

I still think the best way to do it is by whether the game was funded by an outside source that has creative control over a game. In other words, I don't care how large the team size is or how much money went into the game as long as the person making it is also the person who is funding it and is also the person who owns the IP. I don't know the specifics of this particular case, but I'd say if it was funded by someone other than the main developer / IP owner, it isn't independent, otherwise it is.

Eden was made entirely out-of-pocket with no investors. But the reason their pockets were so full was because they'd done really expensive contract work with Sony, and had every PixelJunk game so far released by Sony for oodles of dollars. They don't have an official contract with Sony, but Sony always sells their stuff and gets lots of money for it.

I can't think of any rule IGF could implement that would say that the PixelJunk guys are officially not independent that wouldn't screw over someone who quite clearly was independent. I guess we would just have to hope the judges see eye-to-eye with the community.

I mean, say anyone currently on TIGSource, five years from now, is phenomenally successful. Do they stop being "indie"? Should they abstain from IGF? It's more than just an award; it's a community, and a major indie event.

[MattJ]

I don't think we have too much to worry about here. The IGF organisers and judges must know that selecting too many games that have been out for a while and already had lots of promotion would make the IGF very boring. They need fresh new interesting games coming to prominence through the IGF to keep their profile and media coverage, otherwise it's just another boring awards show.

Personally I think submitting Eden is just bad form on Q-games part. It already has a great (part of a multi-game) publishing/distribution deal, loads of promotion and basically lots of success.

It's interesting Dylan mentions they want to be part of the indie community, did they actually man their IGF pavillion booth? The interview also says he "couldn't be there" for Fish's rant, why not?  If you want to be part of the indie community shouldn't the IGS be more important to you than any other sessions at GDC?

This is telling: "Jones immediately grabbed the nearest Sony PR rep and got me a quick interview." Having a PR handler doesn't sound very indie to me.

[Alex May]

If it had been me, I wouldn't have entered it out of good faith and considering my own position, but I don't think there should be rules on whether or not it/they should be allowed to enter. That's about it.