next »

[Zaphos]

It sounds like you have a very specific agenda in mind that doesn't match up with what people mean when they say 'indie' ... why not find a name that reflects your goals?  Like the Copyright and Trademark Contract Negotiation SIG or something.

Sounds like I haven't sold you and you just don't like it.  Can't please everyone.

I didn't say your thing was bad, just mis-titled.

I think it has more to do with creative freedom / putting creativity before marketing.

That's not an Indie advocacy platform though.  That's an Innovation advocacy platform.

Creative freedom isn't the same as innovation ...

What does being "creative" mean, in the absence of innovation?

'Creative freedom' doesn't mean you're more creative per se, just that you aren't as beholden to market pressures, a marketing department, focus testing results, etc.

[bvanevery]

I didn't say your thing was bad, just mis-titled.

"Copyright and Trademark Contract Negotiation SIG" is about as mis-titled as it comes.  I wouldn't have a problem with "IndieIP.org" if it was indeed a one trick pony.

'Creative freedom' doesn't mean you're more creative per se, just that you aren't as beholden to market pressures, a marketing department, focus testing results, etc.

How can an advocacy organization possibly cause more of this to happen?  This seems to be wholly the choice of the individual developer.  Certainly, we can't collect dues from members, then redistribute the wealth to relieve financial pressure on only a few of them!  Only some philanthropic Daddy Warbucks could remove the financial pressure, and then who's to say that the lucky recipients would do anything creative with the loot?

Contests are more likely to provide the creative stimulus than advocacy organizations.  I'd be happy to help judge a contest with higher standards for creativity and innovation than the IGF judging panels have been requiring.  I have some experience as a judge, I did it for 6 years in the IGF.  When I make such an offer there's usually a problem of "WTF are you?" though.  Which is a general problem of trying to form any jury panel that has "taste."  People can't agree about taste, so they argue about the juries and the rules.

But anyways, back to advocacy organizations.  If you're going to bother to create or join one, you have to believe that there's something important to advocate about.  Thus it may not be important or appealing to self-sufficient hobbyists, whose needs are already met.  Can't build an advocacy organization based on people who don't want to advocate.  What you end up with is an org like the IGDA.  Any time you bring up "getting tough" with those guys, they're like, oh no, we can't do that because it might make a member upset, or we could have legal liability, or some other ridiculous hand wringing from people who simply don't want to take a stand on any issue in the game industry.  All they've done for 15 years is churn out whitepapers that the game industry ignores.

[increpare]

I had never heard of Indie SIG before. Here's their website.

For purposes of this SIG, an 'Indie' has the following qualities:

1. An 'Indie' has the intent to make a profit off their game.

2. An 'Indie' tends to go outside of mainstream channels to develop, market, and distribute their game.

3. An 'Indie' is not funded by an ESA or ESLPA publisher.

[Eclipse]

I had never heard of Indie SIG before. Here's their website.

For purposes of this SIG, an 'Indie' has the following qualities:

1. An 'Indie' has the intent to make a profit off their game.

2. An 'Indie' tends to go outside of mainstream channels to develop, market, and distribute their game.

3. An 'Indie' is not funded by an ESA or ESLPA publisher.

I'm sorry increpare, but you're not indie, next time don't be stupid and try to ask for money for your games, that's the difference form indie and amateur!

[bvanevery]

I had never heard of Indie SIG before. Here's their website.

Unfortunately, because the IGDA has been ridiculously slow to ship modern web technology (years in the making!) that website is woefully out of date.  We are in the process of rebooting the IGDA Indie SIG, and consequently, the right website to refer to our activities is the Indiereboot website.  3 months ago I announced the existence of our group on TIGSource and asked for input about what an Indie SIG should or could be.  We absorbed some of the input.  Unfortunately, the IGDA did not deploy new web technology in the interim, which is why the website situation is totally discombobulated and looks like ancient decrepit s**t.  This is not for any lack of desire to fix it on my part.

We have debated the Mission Statement and definition of "indie" for purposes of the SIG at great length.  The quoted definition above is not agreed upon.  I've put forth a new definition in the Constitution, and am trying to get people to ratify (i.e. vote) on it.  That definition is the one I gave at the start of this thread.  Here it is again for clarity:

"The IGDA Indie Special Interest Group (Indie SIG) exists to advocate on behalf of independent game developers, and to assist them in the difficult task of bringing their games to a larger audience.  For purposes of this SIG, an "independent / indie" is defined as a game developer who owns and controls their intellectual property ("IP") with respect to Publishers and Distributors.  For instance, a game developer who gives up ownership of their IP to a Publisher in exchange for funding, or a game development studio owned by a parent company, is not independent.  A game developer who seeks a distribution deal with a third party, and retains full rights to their own IP, is independent."

The wordsmithing is not perfect.  It needs a clause about Publishers who own subsidiaries or divisions of game development studios are not indies.  I will have better wordsmithing soon, possibly tonight.  I think the intent is reasonably clear though.  We don't debate whether you make money off of your games.  We decided that debate is fruitless for purposes of making an advocacy organization.  We believe that control over one's IP is the common ground that unites all strains of indies.

[bvanevery]

I have refined the IGDA Indie SIG Mission Statement.  It now addresses the question of Publishers such as Ubisoft.  We will be voting to ratify this wording unless some SIG member seriously objects.  Full text:

"The IGDA Indie Special Interest Group (Indie SIG) exists to advocate on behalf of independent game developers, and to assist them in the difficult task of bringing their games to a larger audience.  For purposes of this SIG, an "independent / indie" is defined as a game developer who owns and controls their intellectual property ("IP") with respect to Publishers and Distributors.  The terms “Publisher” and “Distributor” are not regarded as equivalent or in any way synonymous; the former implies control of IP, the latter does not.  A self-publishing game development studio is independent.  However, a company that wholly owns a game development studio as a subsidiary company, or has multiple game development studios as corporate divisions, is not regarded as independent, as the company is removing IP ownership and control from the game development studios.  A game developer who gives up ownership of their IP to a Publisher in exchange for funding, or a game development studio owned by a parent company, is not independent.  A game developer who seeks a distribution deal with a third party, and retains full rights to their own IP, is independent."