next »

[Movius]

I believe in the indie scene, I think one day soon it's going to find a profitable business model to allow every passionate game maker out there to live independently from the fruits of his/her labor. And I think it's going to be a team effort; I see that while people are often individually working on their own baby, they cheer the others on, they help whenever they can and overall keep a real sense of community that you seldom find within big companies.

I'm confused by this section (more than the rest of the post.) I don't see how an indie game developer is any different to any other creative venture or indeed, small business of any kind.

The 'business model' already exists in the form: "Make product, sell it for more than it cost you to make*." Hundreds of thousands of businesses use this model succesfully every day.

Although, if by 'business model' you mean: "1. Make game about burning carrots that no one but me cares about. 2. ? 3. Profit!" Then you merely need to look at the litany of 'passionate artists' that somehow avoid mainstream fame for proof of the futility of your desire.

*working on commission/patronage/being extremely rich beforehand are also acceptable models.

[Lurk]

Movius:

Although, if by 'business model' you mean: "1. Make game about burning carrots that no one but me cares about. 2. Huh?? 3. Profit!" Then you need merely look at the litany of 'passionate artists' that somehow avoid mainstream fame for proof of the futility of your desire.

Haha, I was exactly thinking about this one . Maybe it's because my definition of indie developer is someone who makes weird artsy games for the hardcore audience. I don't consider the casual market indie. I know "Make product, sell it for more than it cost you to make*." is the usual model, but I think something like a loose network would work better "make product, contribute it to a collective, get your equal share of the profit made by selling the compilation". I might be wrong about this though, I kind of failed every economy class I took during my student life (I was too busy drawing in the margin to take notes)

[ZombiePixel]

Perhaps not a reason to become an indie developer but definitely a reason to get into publishing.  Notice that nowhere in the proposal are bloated executive salaries mentioned.  Scrap one unnecessary VP of Marketing and you can finance at least 2 programmers and an artist.

I don't necessarily agree with Rinku's assessment that "most indies would and could not be professional game developers".  At least back when I first started (2001) a good number of developers in the indie scene were escapees from mainstream studios, myself included.  The funny thing is that I think statistically most of the successful indies (read: those earning a living from it) fall into this category.

You have to remember that the industry as it is most resembles the old studio system of Hollywood where the creatives were paid flat salaries with no profit participation and little input into what projects they worked on.  A handful of executives reaped all the rewards.  After the government broke up the studio system and filmmaking tools became cheaper the artists (those who proved they could make money) eventually achieved equal status to the executives.

I think the games industry is smelling the change coming as development tools become more cheap and plentiful.  As indie shops gain access to even closed markets like the consoles.  There's a shift happening where one man or a small team can make a hit, build a brand and reap all the rewards...and that it's happening more often.  And they're rightfully scared.

[GregWS]

I think the games industry is smelling the change coming as development tools become more cheap and plentiful.  As indie shops gain access to even closed markets like the consoles.  There's a shift happening where one man or a small team can make a hit, build a brand and reap all the rewards...and that it's happening more often.  And they're rightfully scared.

If you haven't watched it, check out Infinite Ammo's second video blog at MIGS where there's a massive crowd around their booth and only a couple people in front of Ubisoft's! 

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

The only successful ex-industry indie developer that I know of is Cliffski -- I'm sure there are others, but he's the only one I've ever encountered so far. He worked for Lionhead, on The Movies and other games. And from what I hear rumored, he didn't "leave" to become an indie developer, but was fired, so it still seems generally true that indie devs can't work for large companies, or at least that being good at working for others and being good at working for oneself are somewhat opposing forces.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Haha, I was exactly thinking about this one . Maybe it's because my definition of indie developer is someone who makes weird artsy games for the hardcore audience. I don't consider the casual market indie. I know "Make product, sell it for more than it cost you to make*." is the usual model, but I think something like a loose network would work better "make product, contribute it to a collective, get your equal share of the profit made by selling the compilation". I might be wrong about this though, I kind of failed every economy class I took during my student life (I was too busy drawing in the margin to take notes)

I definitely consider causal game developers indie game developers, they just don't make "hardcore" games. "Hardcore" games to me seem more reminiscent of the mainstream industry than indie games, and don't really describe most indie games. Knytt and Seiklus and Braid for example are definitely not hardcore, and definitely indie games. I'd say the difference is that indie games tend to be specialized and niche, appealing to a smaller group's tastes, whereas mainstream games tend to appeal to broader tastes. And one of those niche's (and one of the most profitable ones) is people who didn't play games growing up (casual games).

[Lurk]

And one of those niche's (and one of the most profitable ones) is people who didn't play games growing up (casual games).

I had a long thought about this thread while walking in the woods. Sometimes I write like I speak(without thinking) and I use the ensuing dialogue to focus my own thoughts.
I was thinking about playing ys3 when I was younger, and my exasperated mother looking at me and my 'weird game where I always do the same thing with that awful music'. My wife said that these games used to be like books, compared to the games today which are more like movies. You use your brain differently when reading, you create and comnpensate for the lack of pictures/definition.
 When I say 'hardcore', I don't mean hard gameplay; in my opinion, Knytt is hardcore, because how you appreciate it really depends on your sense of aesthetics. Most people I work with did'nt bother to try it or could'nt understand why I played it, because of the minimalist graphics. Same with Cave Story, La Mulana, even the 3d Mount and Blade('It's so ugly!').
Casual games, I think it depends on the intent behind the game: someone who truly tries to innovate with a new concept I would see as indie, but those who only make a clone to make a quick buck, unless they're stashing money and creating something worthwhile on the side, I don't see as different from the whole 'casual' game scene we are seeing on the ds and wii.
And I think we succesfully derailed this topic It's a very interesting dialogue though, I think we could further it in a relevant topic.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Those are pretty uncommon definitions, I had no idea people even used the words like that, they're really quite orthogonal to how I've seen people use those words and how I use them. For reference, I use the words like this:

indie: independently funded / self-funded (this is how the term is used for indie music and indie film, as well as indie games).

hardcore: games that cater to people who are heavily invested in games, games that cater to "gamers". not necessarily more difficult, just a game that caters to people familiar with games already.

casual: the opposite of hardcore, an approachable game that can be played by anyone, but often (although not always) too simple for "gamers".

so by that, indie games can be hardcore, casual, or neither -- there are other types, like artsy (The Graveyard), crazy (Quite Soulless), etc., which are neither hardcore nor casual.

[Lurk]

indie: independently funded / self-funded

But what if the game developer is a multi-millionaire? Paris Hilton released an indie music album she funded herself. But you're right, I'm misusing the word; I mean something more akin to the underground comic scene; something you do out of passion, without necessarily looking for a material gain out of it.

Casual I see that way because the casual departments work mainly on what I consider to be non-games: Pet simulators, Weight Loss stuff etc. Most games today would fit your definition of approachable games that can be played by anyone, Imo.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

If it's something someone does out of passion, without requiring material gain out of it, then a lot of mainstream games would be indie too. Miyamoto and Will Wright are definitely passionate about what they do, but I don't think anyone would say that they make indie games. I think passion is important, but I think it's a bad idea to define indie games just by passion, because that leads to a lot of personal attacks because they only way to say that someone isn't an indie developer is an ad hominem, it's to say that they aren't passionate about what they do. A definition that encourages personal attacks isn't very useful to me.

[Lurk]

I think passion is important, but I think it's a bad idea to define indie games just by passion, because that leads to a lot of personal attacks because they only way to say that someone isn't an indie developer is an ad hominem, it's to say that they aren't passionate about what they do. A definition that encourages personal attacks isn't very useful to me.

I would'nt use my definition of indie to personally attack someone; I don't see anything wrong with wanting to make money. I think it mostly comes on a personal/spiritual level, of what you do with your life, if you only do things for cash, you'll bend backwards and end up with very few principles to keep a job.
I don't know what is happening inside a person's head, maybe he/she is very stimulated by working on a bejewelled clone- hell, I even had an idea for a match3 with witches and summons. But like I said, I might be misusing the word, because when I think of the indie game scene, I see something like the underground comics movement.
And since passion is a very personal thing, I don't see how I could say you're not passionnate about your work, unless I'm in your head while you're working.

Miyamoto and Will Wright are looking for material gain, in the end.  They might enjoy the ride along the way, but if they did it only for fun, they would'nt take the huge paycheck that comes with it. 

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I'd still consider that an attack, even if you didn't intend it as one. It's phrased as an attack and is in effect an attack, no matter how you word it. And it's not helpful.

In Miyamoto's case for instance, he would be a billionaire if he accepted royalties from Nintendo, but he refuses to accept that. He still works for only a 5-figure income (in US dollars).

[Lurk]

I'd still consider that an attack, even if you didn't intend it as one. It's phrased as an attack and is in effect an attack, no matter how you word it. And it's not helpful.

That would be your perception then, I can't do anything about that. I said I would define indie games by a passionnate development with no material gain in mind while making the game. But that's just me, in my own idealistic world vision, where houses don't cost as much and no one ever goes hungry, or suffers from privation. And everyone can enjoy full creative freedom. 

I don't know Miyamoto's salary, but I'm very wary of legends, especially in the game industry, because the gaming press needs its royalty, and does'nt shirk from embellishing the truth to get it.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

It's not just a perception, it's an attack, objectively. Think about it systematically: your claim is that *if* someone makes money from something, they are necessarily doing it *because* of the money, and would not do it if they were not paid for it. That's clearly wrong to say, and clearly a personal attack. It's a way to feel better about yourself by putting others down.

[Lurk]

It's not just a perception, it's an attack, objectively. Think about it systematically: your claim is that *if* someone makes money from something, they are necessarily doing it *because* of the money, and would not do it if they were not paid for it. That's clearly wrong to say, and clearly a personal attack. It's a way to feel better about yourself by putting others down.

It would be an attack if making money was a bad thing, no? I might just be looking at it that way, because I enjoy so much more what I'm doing without the threat of losing a job if you don't perform that I see my own paid work as 'lesser'. But I would'nt take it as far a saying I'm putting others down to feel better about myself. I'm trying to find a way to keep my own creative liberty, while being paid for it, but am not certain people would pay for what would come out, if I did what I really want to do. It might be my own insecurities or something. And my claim was:

something you do out of passion, without necessarily looking for a material gain out of it.

Hardly the definitive

*if* someone makes money from something, they are necessarily doing it *because* of the money

you're reading too much into what I said, I'm afraid. Or maybe I miswrote, my main language is french; in french 'ce que tu fais passionnement, sans necessairement viser un profit' is very tame. Necessairement ,I translated as necessarily, means in this case you might be getting money, but that would'nt be your main goal in the endeavour.
 

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Even if making money were the most noble thing in the world, it'd still be an attack to say that someone does something just for money. Everything we do has many reasons, and it's simplistic to say: you're indie if you do it out of passion, you're not if you do it for money. Motivation isn't that simplistic, people don't work like that.

Everyone is passionate about what they do to some extent. Everyone also hates what they do sometimes, such as when they work on tedious and boring parts of a game.

So defining indie games by someone else's motivation, which you can't measure, which you have to guess at, and which is usually offensive if you guess wrong, is a definition fraught with peril.

[Lurk]

So defining indie games by someone else's motivation, which you can't measure, which you have to guess at, and which is usually offensive if you guess wrong, is a definition fraught with peril.

Not if it's my own personal definition of the word. I'm not trying to impose it on others, I don't start movements saying, stop selling your games, or making them for money, else you don't qualify for my personal haughty standards. Even if it's simplistic, it's just a word I use to orient my own progress through life.

Everyone is passionate about what they do to some extent. Everyone also hates what they do sometimes, such as when they work on tedious and boring parts of a game.

Sure, I'm even passionate about commissioned work. But again, it is different from a labor of love, which I would craft to the limits of my own actual abilities. I would then define it for me, and I don't really care what a third party would define it. I know my own art style to be very commercial, and influenced by very figurative arcade games; I don't take it as an insult if in your opinion, it's not artistic, it's just your opinion; I might even ponder it and integrate it to the constant flowing of my own reflexion. I think when you find such a tame label insulting, it's something you have to resolve within yourself, not with the outward source.

 

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I think that even as a personal definition, it's a bad idea, because it causes you to try to categorize other people by the motivation you ascribe to them, which you usually have no accurate way of knowing. By defining indie games as games which were self-funded, without any external publishing money, that's at least objective, you can know for sure whether or not a game was self-funded. But you can't know for sure whether or not a game was created out of passion, out of a desire for money, or out of any other reason. There's no way to know that, so why even guess about it? I don't see any benefit in categorizing them like that. It also has the implication that games created just from passion are somehow different or special, which feels like an imaginary made-up category intended to elevate some games over others.

[Lurk]

By defining indie games as games which were self-funded, without any external publishing money, that's at least objective, you can know for sure whether or not a game was self-funded.

Yes, but some people start-off with a lot more money or comfortable position than others.

I don't see any benefit in categorizing them like that. It also has the implication that games created just from passion are somehow different or special, which feels like an imaginary made-up category intended to elevate some games over others.

I think it's only a personal benefit, to separate the commercial work I do from what I love. It is mostly imaginary, if I applied it to others. Like if I was to say "Your game is not indie, because you have no PASSION". But I did'nt . And I would'nt. I would not judge your work like that; I would play it, enjoy it, and say 'I liked that' or 'I did'nt like that'. But I would'nt say 'I'm not trying it because it's not INDIE'. It's just a word I use to make sense of my world view.

I don't see any benefit in categorizing them like that.

Maybe because you see it important to be categorized as an indie developer, because you feel it is hard enough to self-fund your projects without having others meddling with that label. Like I said earlier, you're probably right in essence, but I need the idealistic steps to drive me on further on my way.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Yes, of course some people start off with more money than others, but I don't see how that's relevant. There are very few people who start out with enough money to personally fund a game as big as the mainstream games. And even if someone were a millionaire, they'd be unlikely to put millions into a personal vanity project without any hope that it'd make back any of the money that went into it.

I think it's fine to separate your commercial work from what you do without pay, but I do think that by defining indie in this way you are applying it to others. It isn't true that you're not, or that you didn't, or that you wouldn't, because you just go through saying "I think it mostly comes on a personal/spiritual level, of what you do with your life, if you only do things for cash, you'll bend backwards and end up with very few principles to keep a job." -- that's applying it to others, and that's implying that people who do things for money do it only for money, and that they don't have any principles.

I don't think it's important that I'm an indie developer. Besides, by you definition, I was an indie developer for 15 years (since I made games for free), so I think it's weird if I suddenly became not indie after all that time just due to making one shareware game.

I just think it creates unneeded division to say, e.g., that casual developers or shareware developers aren't real indie developers because they don't make games out of passion, etc. It's just a weird and divisive way to categorize things; do you also apply this categorization to indie music and indie film? If an indie band sells an album with their music on it from their website, are they no longer an indie band?