next »

[s0]

You think this EA thing is bad, wait 'til you see this.

What the hell right to these guys have to call themselves 'indies'?  They don't even make games!

Wrong, moi and Gimmy are from there.

[moi]

as always, not all of the west indies are really indie

[reallyjoel]

Haha, clearly these games aren't indy games. What the hell was EA even thinking here, they are clearly western games. No way these were outsourced to Bombay or Calcutta..right???

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I think what Eres is wondering mirrors my thoughts in the general "pollution" thread, where I basically figured the Valve Handbook to be a conscious leak, designed to aid in headhunting employees-- that some new hire isn't going to really have the ability to start making new games on the company dime because of unwritten social pressures.  I'm sure that Valve's heirarchy-less system is better in a lot of ways than, say, EA, but it's going to fall prey to some problems due to invisible chains of command, lack of defined borders in interpersonal office conflicts, etc.  Sure beats most jobs though, by far.

another big issue is, who cares about how much freedom devs have when they make games, if they can't profit from those games? who do you think gets the money when valve sells a game, the employee?

let's say someone makes a game while at valve, and leaves valve: can they then make a sequel to that game, or does valve own all the rights?

let's say someone makes a great game for valve. they are then fired. that game then makes tens of millions of dollars. does that guy see any of it?

i suspect the answers are "no, no, and no" to those questions

i've always maintained that the definition of indie is *the developers own the rights to the games they create*. it has nothing to do with how the games are made, the team size, whether a game was funded or not, or whatever; only if a developer owns the rights to the games he or she creates is it "independent game development"

analogy: thatgamecompany, which is owned by sony, has perfect freedom to create the types of games they want to make (they made cloud, flower, journey, etc.). which leads some people to call them indie. but how can they really be indie if sony owns their games, not them? it doesn't matter how much freedom they have if they don't actually profit off the fruits of their labors, but instead are given an arbitrary "wage" which doesn't change no matter how good or bad their game is, and which ends when the person employing them says it ends

[Paul Jeffries]

On a more serious note:

@eiyukabe: I'm sorry, but I'm forced to disagree with you.  For rent-seeking to be profitable you need to be able to maintain at least partial control over a limited resource.  What with videogames being a digital medium available from a near-infinite number of suppliers, the games industry is probably one of the worst places you could try to do this.  Games developers don't go to publishers because they're forced to at gunpoint or because they are stupid, they go because publishers provide the resources to distribute the game and make it in the first place, thereby enabling the 'wealth creation' to happen and - what a lot of people tend to forget - bearing a lot of the risk involved.  I know its super-trendy right now to ignore these facts and pretend that people who 'just' provide investment are all worthless parasites, but it's not *entirely* true.

The independant movement didn't evolve to 'fight' anything - it evolved because technology (and game fashion) progressed to a point where the barriers to developers doing these things for themselves decreased.  For what it's worth I most definitely agree that rent-seeking is something we should be fighting against - but confusing it with economic activities that do actually provide benefits is one of the main reasons why the political will to do so doesn't exist.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

if you think people don't go to publishers because they are stupid, what about cases where games make much more money without publishers than they would have with publishers (such as minecraft refusing to be bought by valve), and cases like nicalis and night game (where nifflas gave nicalis the rights to publish night game, which then botched the entire thing)? what about cases like playtpus by anthony flack, where someone sold the rights to a game to some company for $2000, who then made hundreds of thousands of dollars from the game, and didn't give the developer anything beyond that first $2000? what about cases where portals monopolize a market through bullying tactics and buy-outs and then take 80% of the sales, as with big fish games in the casual pc game sphere? there are plenty of cases where it *is* better if a developer sells the game on their own, self-publishing it, and where going to a publisher was the worst decision someone could make

of course sometimes using a publisher is better, but acting like using a publisher is always better, or that using a publisher is never a mistake, makes no sense. publishers can and do trick people out of money and get them into contracts which favor them enormously over the developers, that's their entire purpose. i agree that publishers are not "useless" and do have the ability to promote games, but their ability to promote games is due to all the money that they have previously obtained and amassed over the years from other developers

analogy: you charge a guy to cross your bridge. how did you buy that bridge? from the guy who made it. how did you pay for it? by charging people to cross it. you then use that money to buy more bridges. pretty soon you own all the bridges, without having built any of them. you haven't actually added any value. those bridges would still exist, and may even be cheaper to cross if you didn't monopolize them all

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

also, saying that indie games didn't evolve to address this very issue seems to ignore many of the modern indie game movement's founding documents, such as the scratchware manifesto

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scratchware_Manifesto
http://www.homeoftheunderdogs.net/scratch.php

[DavidCaruso]

*that scene in matrix reloaded where Agent Smith whispers 'It is inevitable...' in Neo's ears, except Neo is Derek Yu and every instance of Agent Smith is an employee of EA.*

Someone pitch this to HBO asap.

Anyway I'd rather have less "creative freedom" and the power to work with a ton of other dudes on something relatively awesome with a ton of backing (even if it doesn't adhere exactly to my "vision") than more "creative freedom" and the power to make a platformer or Zeldalike except this time it has more atmosphere (though at least that'd guarantee 90%+ Metacritic scores, without even needing to have PR guys bribe anyone or give them free T-shirts.) "Oversimplification:" I think I can get away with some when everyone else is reducing Electronic Arts to the videogame industry version of the Devil.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i don't think ea is particularly bad as publishers go actually -- there are many worse and more shady publishers. ea is relatively nice (note the relatively)

[PompiPompi]

Well the issue is obviously that people need money.
I am sure many of us would love to work on their own game, and give for free, if money wasn't an issue. But most of us don't have a source of income that doesn't require us to work for it.
Those people going to publishers were probably lured by the money, they might even have no other option than to get the support of a publisher to make games and make a living.
It's a tough issue, sadly most indie developers don't have any kind of external support and can't make a living without keeping a "real" job or doing free lancing.
Well, it wasn't so bad if it wasn't so damn hard to find a job that both leave you enough time to work on your games and pay the rent.
My issue is that I can't find a part time job that can support me. I could easily find a full time job that pays a lot of money, but I end up spending most of my weekend resting from the exhausting work.
Another issue is that companies don't like when you work on your own projects, they want you to be dedicated to the company. They might give you a part time job if you said you are a student, or if you say you volunteer. But if you will say that you work on your own indie game, they won't be happy with it.

[Paul Jeffries]

@Paul E:  I didn't say that no developer ever did anything stupid and that no publisher ever did anything a bit dodgy, just that these things are not the sole reason for that relationship existing - not ALL developers that use publishers are stupid so it's not intrinsic to their existance.  Just because homeopathy exists and there are people who fall for it doesn't invalidate the entire field of medicine.

of course sometimes using a publisher is better, but acting like using a publisher is always better, or that using a publisher is never a mistake, makes no sense.

Well its a good job I never said anything remotely like that then, isn't it?  As I said, the barriers to developers doing it for themselves are now low enough that for a lot of games, publishers are not required or desirable.  That's basically what the Scratchware Manifesto is about.

publishers can and do trick people out of money and get them into contracts which favor them enormously over the developers, that's their entire purpose. i agree that publishers are not "useless" and do have the ability to promote games

So, they're not 'useless', but screwing people over is their 'entire purpose'?  DOES NOT COMPUTE.

analogy: you charge a guy to cross your bridge. how did you buy that bridge? from the guy who made it. how did you pay for it? by charging people to cross it. you then use that money to buy more bridges. pretty soon you own all the bridges, without having built any of them. you haven't actually added any value. those bridges would still exist, and may even be cheaper to cross if you didn't monopolize them all

That's an entirely false analogy.  If the guy who built the bridge can make money by charging people to cross it himself, why would be sell it?  A better one: A guy wants to build a bridge, but needs more wood than he can cut down by himself and doesn't have enough food to eat while building it.  So, you give him some of the wood that you had previously cut down and some of your surplus food in exchange for a share in the revenue he gets from it once its built.  To say that 'those bridges would still exist' is untrue - even if you didn't personally put any effort into building them you still enabled them to be built.  And more to the point, it isn't rent-seeking - that would be saying "you can't build that bridge there unless you give me some money, because I 'own' this river, even though obviously I have nothing to do with this river being here in the first place".  There is a massive difference there which most people fail to appreciate.

[PompiPompi]

Jefferies, don't think for a moment that publishers don't try to squeeze every bit of profit from the developers. They might even intentionally not give their developers enough money, just so they won't have enough saving to try making a game on their own.
This is not something that only publishers do, you will soon find that most companies out there try to maximize profits, they give as little as possible, but just enough so you won't complain. They also present it as if you are very lucky to work for them, and the constant competition on jobs keeps you on your toes.
There are very few companies who really treat their workers well, most companies will just try to increase their productivty as much as possible.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

of course sometimes using a publisher is better, but acting like using a publisher is always better, or that using a publisher is never a mistake, makes no sense.

Well its a good job I never said anything remotely like that then, isn't it? 

exactly. nobody ever said anything remotely like "not ALL developers that use publishers are stupid so it's not intrinsic to their existance." either

[Paul Jeffries]

Jefferies, don't think for a moment that publishers don't try to squeeze every bit of profit from the developers. They might even intentionally not give their developers enough money, just so they won't have enough saving to try making a game on their own.
This is not something that only publishers do, you will soon find that most companies out there try to maximize profits, they give as little as possible, but just enough so you won't complain. They also present it as if you are very lucky to work for them, and the constant competition on jobs keeps you on your toes.
There are very few companies who really treat their workers well, most companies will just try to increase their productivty as much as possible.

I... don't think that?  Or say anything remotely like that... it's completely irrelevant to what I was talking about.  And it's 'Jeffries', thanks.

Just to clarify: I'm not trying to defend publishers in any way, I'm sure they are all awful.  I'm just saying that they are not awful for the very specific reasons that eiyukabe was suggesting.

of course sometimes using a publisher is better, but acting like using a publisher is always better, or that using a publisher is never a mistake, makes no sense.

Well its a good job I never said anything remotely like that then, isn't it?

exactly. nobody ever said anything remotely like "not ALL developers that use publishers are stupid so it's not intrinsic to their existance." either

Well, taking what you wrote literally - actually, I said exactly that, since you were quoting me...  Assuming you meant something more like 'I didn't say all developers that use publishers are stupid'; no, I didn't say that you did - I was just saying that that would need to be the case in order for it to invalidate my original point.  Unless ALL developers are stupid then the stupidity of specific developers has no relevance to the general case.

[Capntastic]

another big issue is, who cares about how much freedom devs have when they make games, if they can't profit from those games? who do you think gets the money when valve sells a game, the employee?

This is basically the nature of capitalism though.  Why should I continue to work at a store if I don't get what I perceive to be a fair share of the profits and also the ability to change store displays as I please?  Because I'll starve if I don't.  While one might place more pride in their work if they see it as creative or culturally useful or whatever, that alone means nothing to capitalism.  All that matters is if people are going to pay money for it.

Would some devs benefit from working solo or ditching large companies and forming their own teams?  Some definitely would, yes.  The nature of distribution is changing.  Are there some devs who, despite loving their job, would utterly fail in a self-directed, independent project?  Yes.  Are there people who, despite being solid game devs, simply cannot handle the tasks of being PR, Salesman, and Accountant as well? Yes.

While I've had negligible successes in self publishing (considering the amount of 'real' heart and soul effort I've put in), I would not be totally unopposed to working for a publisher for a secure cash infusion. I wouldn't have trouble, say, coming up with an easily marketable intellectual property I don't care too much about losing the rights to.  I do these things gladly because I need money to live.

In an ideal world I'd be able to work on my heart and soul projects without caring about how much I sell.  We're far from that world though.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i think that's a misunderstanding of capitalism. the idea of employment, wages, and salary is actually anti-capitalist, not capitalist. capitalism is when people profit from what they produce (by selling their products and services)

we do not really have that situation. what we have is corporatism. most people do not profit from the work they do, they are paid to do work, and someone else profits from the work they did. but what they are paid is far less than what the work itself is worth

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Well, taking what you wrote literally - actually, I said exactly that, since you were quoting me...  Assuming you meant something more like 'I didn't say all developers that use publishers are stupid'; no, I didn't say that you did - I was just saying that that would need to be the case in order for it to invalidate my original point.  Unless ALL developers are stupid then the stupidity of specific developers has no relevance to the general case.

i have no idea what you are saying here, could you rephrase this? these sentences are a bit convoluted

[Paul Jeffries]

@Paul E:

Sure.  I'm just saying that although it's true that developers sometimes act stupidly in their dealings with publishers, that does not invalidate the general case that I was talking about.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

hmm -- i can see that i guess. but what i meant was that you were decrying our use of extremes while yourself using an extreme. i.e. you were saying that just because some publishers add value, that means that publishing as a whole isn't unfair to one side (that it's fair to both sides). can't it be true that something can add some value and simultaneously be unfair?

music publishers and book publishers, from what i hear, get about 90% of the profits, musicians and authors get around 10%. that seems like a lop-sided power balance. shouldn't it be somewhere closer to 50-50? is the marketing of something (which certainly requires money, expertise, and even creativity) really worth nine times as much as the creation of what it's marketing?

in power dynamics, the side with more power and more money gets to make the terms of the contract. publishers need creators, but they don't need any *particular* creator. so they have a greater amount of power over creators than creators have over publishers. this greater amount of power leads to less fair contracts, to less fair splitting up of profits

[shig]

Just saying: There are plenty of cases where the publishers actually seek to find good devs and give them all the means to make their visions come true, as close to their original ideas as is possible.
This sort of stuff usually happens with "famous" devs, but, well, have you ever heard of a game called Skullgirls?