TIGSource Forums

"Indie organization" might sound like an oxymoron.  But of course, TIGSource is one, of a sort.  The sort I'm wondering about, however, is the sort that has a specific advocacy agenda.  Possibly with members who pay money to fund that agenda.  Does that sort of indie organization exist anywhere?  Has anyone tried to make one?  If it didn't pan out, why not?

I can say that the IGDA Indie SIG does not exist in this manner just yet.  There are plans, but now, there is also a problem of the IGDA Board "formalizing its authority" over IGDA SIG governance.  Yes, if the words "IGDA Board" induce involuntary groans from some of you, I totally hear you.  I have many issues with the governance and accountability of the IGDA Board, and not just stemming from high profile scandals.  I can't imagine paying these guys to have control over what I do, unless they're prepared to offer significant benefits in return.  Currently they offer none.  I hope they thought about what they're going to offer, when they were deciding to formalize things!  Anyways, the Indie SIG will be "pushing back" on the formalization requirements, but it's possible that we might end up with an oversight structure that doesn't give indies any incentive to join.  So, I'm asking whether other indie organizations exist, because this might be my curtain call for trying to work with the IGDA. 

The advocacy platform I'm interested in, is about intellectual property rights.  I think control over IP is the one (and only) definition of "indie" that we're all capable of agreeing on.  In the draft Indie SIG Constitution (http://groups.google.com/group/indiereboot/web/indie-sig-constitution) I defined the following advocacy platform:

"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."

Feel free to shoot holes in this definition, if it doesn't hold up in some corner case or something.  I think though, that the basic notion of "indieness is about control of one's own IP" is solid.

So Valve, ID Software, Ubisoft, Epic... are all indie software houses, uhm...

ID Software is not indie anymore.  They are now owned by ZeniMax.

I guess the definition doesn't deal with Publishers that are acquiring other developers' IP, or who own development studios as subsidiary companies.  I remember getting sidetracked when we were debating how to hammer this out.  Ah well, it's just more wordsmithing.

Regarding Valve, does anyone know what the IP status of Left4Dead 2 is, with respect to EA?  Did EA function as a Publisher for Valve, funding development in exchange for IP rights?  Or is EA distributing Valve's self-funded and self-owned IP?

I'm almost sure that Left4Dead is a valve IP, as they never sold any of their IPs as far I know, they also publish their own games via steam and there's no EA or another retail publisher logo on Hl2 or the first L4D, so I suppose it's only for the retail market.

That makes valve an indie software house? And was ID indie before being sold to zenimax? What about Ubisoft or dunno, Rockstar Games?

I think that definition is quite loose, being indie is not only something about controlling the IP rights.

Indie doesn't mean independent by publishers, but also by some market rules too.
Making a match-three game for facebook for example doesn't make you indie, and leading a big multinational software house doesn't make you indie too, even if you directly distribute your games like Ubisoft does

There's a big problem that people tend to use the words "Publishing" and "Distribution" interchangeably, but they are not interchangeable at all, in terms of IP.


Yep and yep.  If they control the IP and can tell Publishers to shove off, they're indie.  Doesn't matter if they're incredibly financially successful indies, or incredibly boring just-like-the-mainstream indies.


They own a bunch of subsidiary studios, so no, not indie.  I know the definition as written doesn't say that, but surely, the "non-indieness" relationship is reciporocal.  Can't have an advocacy platform where it's not ok to sell out, but it is ok to strongarm developers into selling out.


They are owned by Take-Two Interactive.  Not indie.


It's not nearly as loose as you think.  It's just under-wordsmithed.

You may not like thinking of Valve as an indie, but if they're controlling their own IP, they are.  I haven't really looked at the IP issues of Steam though.  It is a distribution portal, right?  Valve doesn't buy the IP, they just distribute the games.  If so, that doesn't taint them with respect to the definition I'm offering.  You may not like their distribution deals, but if they're not taking away your IP, it's not reprehensible to indie-dom.

I'm going to assume you meant "on your Facebook page," not "for the corporation who owns Facebook."  We debated professional qualifications in the Indie SIG.  Whether to keep the net narrow, only serving the needs of professional developers with a business model, or whether to open the net wide, to include all manner of amateurs, hobbyists, modders, and open source types.  Then the SIG sat on its butt for a month doing nothing, while key people attended to other matters in their lives.  When we came back, I think we all realized that we didn't critical mass.  49 people on a mailing list just isn't enough members.  So, we have decided to cast the net wide, as a matter of political expediency.

So yes, by our SIG definition, if you're some amateur putting out utter garbage on your Facebook page, you're still an Indie as far as we're concerned, because you're in control of your IP.  Now, would your amateur agenda come to dominate the SIG's agenda?  I hope not.  That's what the "assist [indies] in the difficult task of bringing their games to a larger audience" clause is about.  I think getting amateur games on Facebook more recognized is a legitimate SIG goal - that's part of what TIGSource does, for instance.  But there's a quid pro quo here with respect to audience.  You're not gonna get a larger audience if most people think your game sucks or isn't especially worthy of comment.  So I think such amateur awareness efforts, will tend to raise the bar as to what amateurs produce.


Well aside from the fine print of what's a division vs. a wholly owned subsidiary company, I think it's just wordsmithing, not a conceptual challenge.  Ubisoft, Microsoft, and EA are not indies.  They've all bought the developer IP independence right out of existence.

well Ubisoft owns other studios, but is not owned by others so is it not indie for that definition? They controls their IP, as the other studios are owned by them too... wasn't you talking about giving ip ownership or also about actually taking new IPs?

And Crytek is actually indie too as they decided to make Crysis instead of Far Cry 2 (as the first one was sold to ubisoft)

I guess I'm not speaking clearly enough with respect to Ubisoft, because I thought I already addressed all of this in previous posts.  No, the current wordsmithing is not adequate.  But the concept is adequate.

Crytek, on the other hand, is making my head spin with acquisition this, acquisition that.  I guess I'm going to have to think about acquisitions.  Anyways, who owns the IP to Crysis?  I can't keep track of the strategic partnerships vs. publisher funding deals vs. it's-not-really-publishing-it's-distribution deals.

What about the case of ThatGameCompany, which is considered by many to be indie, yet Sony owns the rights to whatever they make in the short term?

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

yes, talking about the indie scene only under that definition is quite reductive, even if indie software houses cares a lot about their IPs they see them not like cash-cows but just how an artist can see his drawing.
Even talking about a game like an "IP" or a product sounds alien to me, a game is a game.

There's not a strict definition about what is or not an indie developer because it's more like how you can definite a musical genre than a commercial situation.

Connecting it only to ip ownership makes almost all the casual games developers indie, even when they are the first ones to follow the rules of the market and to shameless clone each other

That's not an Indie advocacy platform though.  That's an Innovation advocacy platform.  As much as I am in favor of innovation, and as much as I dislike nearly all games the mainstream industry churns out, I'm not seeing how to create an advocacy organization with "innovation" as the goal.  That would seem to be the choice of the individual game developers.

I judged in the IGF for 6 years and saw the contest lose focus on innovation as a core value.  I think recently it's been more interested in bigger prize money, more popularity, more accessibility, and more chances for indies to talk to publishers.  The latter seems really weird to me, although maybe it's the old publisher != distributor problem again.  I don't have a problem with indies talking to more *distributors*, and typically the IGF entrants are showing complete self-funded games, so maybe it's just the language and the advertizing I object to.  The "P" word.  Anyways, my point is, sitting around as a judge for 6 years I wasn't able to do anything about it, despite being an obstreperous individual willing to try.  So I'm at a loss as to how I'd get others to "be more innovative," or what I could do in an organization to bolster them.  Juried standards of innovation?  Make an exclusive club?

Whereas, I can see how I'd define an advocacy organization in terms of IP control.  It's straightforward, and important to large numbers of developers.  Which means, more likely to have political relevance and impact.

It may sound alien, but "the language of the deal" is important if you don't want to be bamboozled.  Education on IP issues would be part of the advocacy mission.


I don't have a problem with that.  If you have IP and financial freedom, then you can decide what to do with that freedom.  Instead of some Gatekeeper in some publishing company telling you that Match 4 sales are up, so your current project is canceled and you will be making a Match 4 game for them.

That seems like a bad reason. You're pretty much saying to everyone you don't see as a proper developer with a business model: "you're only here to fill up the numbers."

Either make the decision to include hobbyists/etc because you actually want to and that's part of the plan, or don't include them!

Pretty much the key leader of the Indie SIG did want them.  Some of us definitely didn't agree, at first, about wanting them.  We had issues of "commercial cred" to think about.  But, as time wore on, I saw the merit of greater inclusiveness.  As long as common ground can be established.  I think that common ground is IP ownership and control.

Now, the kind of members I definitely *don't* want, are the kind who think IP ownership and control is an invalid artifact of capitalism or the history of computer hardware and software production, and want us to all go GPL.  I would fight the agenda of any Copyleftist GPL Nazis out to wreck any financially meaningful notion of IP control.  I strongly believe that we do *not* have to have software services as The One True Business Model.  I've seen a number of GPL types making obfuscated or labyrinthine coding systems or withholding documentation, so that they can make themselves invaluable and "part of the problem."  That's "a" business model, but it should not be "the" business model.

I would also expect hobbyists that have no ambition to make money, to be very bored with an advocacy outfit that's designed to get better deals for Indie IP.  So in the name of inclusiveness they could join, but it wouldn't upset me if they left.  If they want to stay, then who knows, they might find some niche where they're contributing something of value, like infrastructure or tools.  Or keeping us aware of indie goings-on.  Or organizing conferences or contests.  Who knows.  Indies don't have to put equal weight into all the concerns, as after all they're indies.  They just need unifying common ground, and I think IP ownership can be that ground.

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.

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

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



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

agreed. I don't really see the connection between this stuff and indie developers


doing a good game? Cave Story isn't innovative by any means, Noitu Love 2, Blueberry Garden or Aquaria wasn't, still those are very creative games.
Finding an unused gimmick for the gameplay doesn't mean that the game is actually any better than one that uses something less innovative, probably the contrary

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of indie games are not sequels, at least these days. Furthermore, there seems to be more focus on the developers themselves, not on the name of the game (see Jonathan Blow, Jonathan Mak, 2D Boy, etc).

So if that's the case, what's the point of putting so much focus on IP, when it's inherently of much less value on the indie scene? (Jonathan Blow's next game being marketed as "by the maker of Braid" is admittedly key, but that can happen regardless of whether Blow owns the IP or not.)

Are you saying that what you would want out of an indie advocacy organization, is a focus on the marketing of indie titles?  That's not a crazy idea, although I wonder how it would be done equitably.

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

'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.

"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.


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.

I had never heard of Indie SIG before. Here's (http://www.igda.org/indie/) their website.

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!

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 (http://groups.google.com/group/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.

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."