next »

[bvanevery]

"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 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.

[Eclipse]

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

[bvanevery]

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.

[bvanevery]

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?

[Eclipse]

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

[bvanevery]

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.

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.

That makes valve an indie software house? And was ID indie before being sold to zenimax?

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.

What about Ubisoft

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.

or dunno, Rockstar Games?

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

I think that definition is quite loose

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.

[bvanevery]

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,

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.

and leading a big multinational software house doesn't make you indie too, even if you directly distribute your games like Ubisoft does

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.

[Eclipse]

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)

[bvanevery]

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.

[Alec]

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.

[Eclipse]

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

[bvanevery]

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.

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.

[bvanevery]

Even talking about a game like an "IP" or a product sounds alien to me, a game is a game.

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.

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

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.

[Jason Bakker]

So, we have decided to cast the net wide, as a matter of political expediency.

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!

[bvanevery]

So, we have decided to cast the net wide, as a matter of political expediency.

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.

[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.

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.

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

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

[bvanevery]

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 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?

[Eclipse]

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.

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

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

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

[Jason Bakker]

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.)

[bvanevery]

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.