When does "indie" suddenly become errr... "commercial" ??

[yanuart]

I gotta tell you guys, the term "indie" lately is so obscured, at least for me.
When I first tried to plunge into the indie world i was so naive and.. uhmm young(actually just a year ago). I wanted to make games that I like, games that I satisfied with, games that can make me say "Hey, I made this!".

But when I start to know alot better about this business, I find that usually in any indie forum I went to it's always about "casual games sells", "puzle game sells huge", "so try to make those games", "follow those path if you want to suceed".
And there you go, at first I wanted to make a side scrolling fighting games like good old days of coin-op arcade machine and mostly the response that I get is "you won't make it, there's no market for it", "uhmm.. dunno if it'll sell, it won't bring any money, i won't do it if i were you".. n so on..

Does that what you guys "indie" developer do ?? I always thought that "indie" means "screw the world, i'll do what i like and I do it for my own approval".

I guess maybe that's what "indie" in term of spirit but in term of business it just means "small group of people who can't afford AAA games development and don't have any relation with major publisher". When I go to site such as bigfishgames, all I see is another clone after another.

I'm really afraid that the same thing that happen to music happen to indie games dev. You know when the "indie" music/band actually become a hype and sold out, when the record company start to look for indie band and package them with the word "INDIE" and a kid next door want to form an indie band so that they can become another successful "indie" band duh??

I'm sorry if some of my words offends you, I'm not looking for enemies in a community which I want to belong, I hold every respect for those guys who made RICOCHET, ZUMA, BOUNCE OUT and I actually a hypocrite 'coz I just made a puzzle game :D

[princec]

There's two kinds of indies, amateurs and professionals, and those two words have nicely well understood definitions. Amateurs don't try to make a living out of something they do, and professionals do, as it's their profession.

Independence has no bearing on whether you're amateur or professional, although the notion of the independent amateur is pretty much a tautology as you're pretty much on your own if you're not trying to make any money out of it to support yourself or anyone else.

Most of the confusion arises out of what "independence" actually is, and the line is hazy. For me, "independent" means free to make business decisions from who to market my games to, right down to the colour of the desktop background on my dev machine.

Cas :)

[Anthony Flack]

A lot of people here are trying to make a living from this, and doing it the best way they can figure out how. I'm hoping to do so myself one day, but I'd like to think that sticking it to the man is still the #1 priority for me.

[By which I mean, if it turns out I can't do the games I'm inspired to make and make money, then I'll stop making games and try something else.]

[svero]

I think indie means free of constraint from a 3rd party that isn't the consumer or general market. In that sense I'd consider ID software or 3drealms indie shops. The line that devides Twilight from ID seems to be mostly about how much money we have and not so much about what we're actually doing. (though partly the kinds of projects we tackle differ due to resources as well - I can't be as ambitious)

[yanuart]

"profesional indie".. hmmm.. now that's a thought that'll fester in my mind :D

[Dan MacDonald]

I'm kind of sick of the trying to make a game that will sell well in todays market. My attempt to do that has taking me almost 4 years. If you want to make a game that is currently popular, if you enjoy match 3 or arkanoid, or you have something you think is truly innovative in the casual space and you would love to try it, then do it. Otherwise if your trying to change the game you want to make into a game you think will sell you will struggle with motivation problems, and more often then not you wont finish. If you do want to make a money grab, be sure the whole game can be played on an screen that doesn't scroll, like dweep or cosmobots, honestly if it's anything more complicated then that you won't be able to get it done and polished to a level that will sell well in under a year. If it takes a year or more, chances are you wont finish it because you didn't really care about the game to begin with, you just wanted to make money.

My advice, make the game you want to make and people will buy it. Just make sure it's not an MMORPG or FPS on your first time out. Pick something you actually can finish and do well. If you are passionate about your game it will show in your creation and people will appreciate it and buy it.

[Coyote]

The only thing worse than an indie that sells out is an "artiste" that insists that his creative vision is so perfect he can completely ignore and even hold in disdain the rest of the industry and his audience.

The cool thing about being an indie is that YOU get to decide what you'll do. You get to cut out the layer of people who don't give a crap about games, lack a creative their collective bodies, but the layer otherwise dictates what will and won't be funded next year.

Aside from cutting out both the good things and bad things about that middle layer, and the usual budgetary limitations that comes with not having access to that purse that layer controls... I don't think there's a huge difference between being an indie and... um... not. You can write games JUST for yourself... and be the only person in the world playing it. Or you can create a game that is designed for the masses... and maybe still be the only person playing it if you can't bring heavy marketing to bear (bare?). Or go somewhere in-between.

But people try to draw to fine a line between an indie developer and a non-indie... I think the term Jay Moore is preferring these days is "Self-Funded" game development. Not as catchy as "indie," and there's still a big difference between a self-funded game from id Software, and a self-funded game by Jake the 15-year old with a copy of GameMaker Pro.

[Andy]

I wasn't ever able to get a term indie in connection to our company activity at all. That's why I can't be offended as well. :D

You are dumn right in your conclusions. We are not an indies at all. At least not we are - WildSnake Software. We like to make games peoples will like to play - colorful, simple in controls and selling as well as possible. So, we like to be "dependies" from our current and potential customers. "Dependies" by all possible ways from their interests to deliver the pleasure to them. And now after the row of last posts here this my statement sounds like "kind of" "so brave"... :D We are not afraid to step into the casual market - backward we'd like to be there and spend all our efforts on that. We don't want to be purist and ellitists...

"Self funded" sounds pretty correct for us so far. But again, I'm pretty not sure if we will deny any fund proposal (get we some ;) ) to stay "self funded" - what for?..

[Dan MacDonald]

I guess we sort of bastardize the term indie as it's classically been used for music and movies for our own purposes. I think it's true, for the most part we aren't really indie. We're just little guys trying to have a small businesses doing game development. I like the concept of "Self Funded" but it's horridly clunky to get mainstream use. Terms like "BootStrap", "Garage", "Micro" + Developer tend to be catchier and still preserve different aspects of the idea.

[mahlzeit]

1) Most people don't know anything about business, so why listen to them.
2) Being commercial isn't necessarily the same as selling out.
3) Your art isn't holy. (See also here (http://www.changethis.com/sp-2.MakeArt))
4) The word "indie" means different things to different people.

[terin]

I don't think its neccessary to slap these labels on companies and products.

I had a good phone conversation with someone fairly important in the game industry and we were discussing what to call a 'shareware' section of the site.

My answer was, why call it anything? Why is it different than a downloadable version of Doom3? Why isn't Doom3 called Retailware (copyright pending)? Don't label it as anything different from a normal game.

An indie is just another development studio like ID Software. The only time I pull out the indie word is to get sympathy or to position my product as the underdog. (There's a marketing trade secret!)

[yanuart]

I like the concept of "Self Funded" but it's horridly clunky to get mainstream use. Terms like "BootStrap", "Garage", "Micro" + Developer tend to be catchier and still preserve different aspects of the idea.

Hey.. I really like the word Micro as in "small in size but everything else is basically the same".. hmm.. micro games development.. yeah i think it's catchy enough..
I was wondering.. when exactly the term indie used in games development ??

[Nexic]

'Sell out' is a term people used to critisize people who are more sucessful than them. In my opinion when anyone calls me a 'sell out' for trying to sell my games, I take it as a compliment - it means they are jealous. I used to get it a lot from old amateur game making communities who seemed angry at me because I wanted to sell my games. The fact I wanted to sell my games did make them a bit more cookie-cutter, but in general they were better.

My stance in this argument is that the word 'Independent' means on your own, and has nothing what so ever to do with whether you try to make money or not. If you work on a game by yourself without 3rd party funding they you are 'Independant'. If I am for some reason wrong, and indie means someone who lives in a gutter and never makes any money then I don't want to be an indie :)

[papillon]

> 'Sell out' is a term people used to critisize people who are more sucessful than them.


Sometimes, yes. But when you hear stories of someone canning an interesting, unusual project in favor of another clone of whatever the currently popular trend is "because it makes good business sense", what else can you call them? :)

But yeah, some people go nuts that you would DARE to charge money for anything at all...

(BTW - Check your text on the Arch Wing blurb on your webpage. It's full of mistakes...)

[Bluecat]

> 'Sometimes, yes. But when you hear stories of someone canning an interesting, unusual project in favor of another clone of whatever the currently popular trend is "because it makes good business sense", what else can you call them? :)


A good business-person?

There are plenty of reasons for someone to follow the path of choosing something because it makes good business sense. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are selling out. Sometimes paying the bills is important.

[yanuart]

hmm.. I guess I must agreed with DanMcDonald here.. We use the term "independent" so badly and difference from other "indie" media (music, movie, etc) that sometimes it doesn't make any sense or defy the prior meaning of "indie".

In music or movie, there's also a indie community which they make "indie" movies and musics and of course they sell it from time to time !! but they rooted in the desire of making alternative/off-stream movies/music and not wether they want to make money from it.
You won't see an independent movie about another "hard-boiled action hollywood theme" right ???

By doing that they hope they can achieve a better art form away from the commercial world. So in that spirit ppl respect them and label them "indie".
when you go to independent movie festival or indepent music festival you get a display of their works/creation and mostly the session is all about the-making-of, techniques, etc and not a session "How to distribute your movies to retailers"/"How to increase sales on your album" -> IGC2004

The conclusion is maybe the community need a better word rather than "independent". We owe the world to keep the term "independent" as it has been used in other media development otherwise we'll get mixed feeling and judgement from ourself and others.

I mean how independent can it be when you :
a. create something based on market demand
b. got no money and want to make money from what you're doing
c. etc
Selling out is not a bad thing if that's what you want.. hey I have more respect to Britney who is a profoundly sell out pop star rather than a metal band who talks about corruption, injustice, etc only to have the fact that they sell 3-4 version of dvds of the same concert :D

Why don't we just named ourself "Micro" Game Developer because in every aspect we trully are just another game developer who still haven't make it yet.

btw the talk about Id is an indie is hillarious to me.. I mean if you consider they are indie based on they can do whatever they desire in development, do you consider microsoft is an indie ?
Id lost its indie-ness in my eyes since they start to bundle their games with NVidia and create game that'll only work better on their cards cause Nvidia pay them more money exclusively . :mad:

[Anthony Flack]

do you consider microsoft is an indie ?

Microsoft is a public company though, but fair call.

The only thing worse than an indie that sells out is an "artiste" that insists that his creative vision is so perfect he can completely ignore and even hold in disdain the rest of the industry and his audience.

Actually, that sounds potentially interesting. Can you give me any examples of people who are doing this, or is it a totally non-existent hypothetical?

The fact I wanted to sell my games did make them a bit more cookie-cutter

Well, I'd say THAT was the sell-out part. And I'm not the least bit jealous - sometimes you need to sell out, you might as well be upfront about it. I sell out when I go to work. I sell out when I do contracting. I don't want to sell out when I'm making games though, it's too much of a labour of love.

If other people want to sell out, I don't mind. I just hope that some people don't. Or at least strike a balance between commerce and art that doesn't lean too heavily on the commerce side. Because personally, I respect games as an artform more than as a commercial product and that is what interests me.

[Andy]

I sell out when I go to work.

Good mention really. So there is the clue. Every morning - 9 AM (including weekends) I go to my work. Every morning 2-3 AM I'm returning back. And the name of this job - WildSnake Software. So, I obviously need to get commerical success to survive. And I don't care whatever terms anothers use for this my activity. We just trying to make good games and compete with the best ones in the area.

[Anthony Flack]

Just to be clear - I didn't mean to suggest that going to work, or making money, is selling out per se. In my case, when I go to work, I go off and do something that I don't believe in, purely because they pay me.

[Andy]

I didn't mean anything against you Anthony. Never... ;)

Your simple words just gave me the understandings what are we doing here and what is the difference between all of us.
The idea is pure simple - get this in full time and get the family and two children. And you (not Anthony! - I mean everybody from here) will get if sell out term is correct for you and if you ever care by usage of it.
We all know the statistics for forum participants and know for sure that 99% of us have this as just another game in business.

PS I just paid attention to the theme of topic again - the question itself sounds so stupid for me (nothing personal!!!) - "indie"... suddenly... "commercial" :confused: What is the problem and what is disconnection between these terms? :D

[Dan MacDonald]

You know, it's a hated term, but the longer I think about it the cooler it sounds to call myself a shareware developer. People in this industry think that "shareware" sounds un professional and armature. But this industry was founded on the concepts set forward by shareware ( the creation of the shareware game model can largely be attributed to Scott Miller of Apogee/3D realms). Before the Internet people had to depends on friends and word of mouth to find games. I remember some nerdy kid at church told me that ID had made a 3D game on the PC were you kill natzis. No way! I didn't believe him, but the next week he showed up with a disk and I took it home. Nothing like Sunday school to spread wolfenstine, I tell ya ;)

When the Internet came along it sort of exploded the shareware model, now you were not limited by what you could find in your local area now people could share it online. Access on the Internet was so simple that the developer could share their games directly with their customers and a "downloadable" industry was born. As DavidRM likes to quote "The new is built on the foundations of the old". Developers are so jaded these days, everyone cripples and limits their games to no end trying to get them to convert better and sell more.

When I was a kid, I remember shareware games meant that you got most of the game for free. Apogee had the model where they would give away a full 1/3 of the game, and when you paid you got the other 2/3'ds. The Keen Series, Jazz Jackrabit, Raptor, all the old games came that way and they made money HAND OVER FIST. I realize it's not the same market today, but it would be interesting to try and modernize the shareware model. Give away more of the game then less, basically approach it from a perspective of trusting customers then expecting the worst.

I think when I get done with Katsu, I may call myself a shareware developer and release it in a similar way to the old Shareware model.

[Anthony Flack]

Well now, that's another argument entirely, but one that I'd be interested to look into, too. I think it really relies on your game being exceptionally good, though.

Basically, give away a whole lot of your game, and the demo becomes more than just a sales pitch, it becomes something worth having in its own right. If it's really good, it might end up spreading itself around like crazy. Of course, the game would have to be good enough to make people want to spread it around like crazy, and also good enough for a whole lot of people to feel compelled to get the full version even though the demo is quite generous.

But that's another argument entirely.

[Mark Fassett]

I call myself a "Game Developer". I add the term "Indie" when it's useful, and "Shareware" when it's useful. But my goal is to make games that I want to make that will sell. I have lots of games I want to make. Some that I think will sell, some that I think won't sell as well. I chose the former. If I see an opportunity to take a game I've made, make some changes to it, and sell it for alot of money, I'll do it. Does that make me a sell out? Possibly. Do I care? No. That's what independance is all about. Being able to chose what you want to do, and doing it. Indie music was no different - lots and lots of indie bands didn't want to stay that way, but they couldn't get a major record deal. Were they any less indie? No.

It's amazing how often this topic crops up. Who cares? Just make your games, and sell them or don't. Why worry about what kind of label to put in front of the words "Game Developer"? What a waste of time.

[princec]

I'm pretty much trying that experiment with Super Elvis. Some configurations are unlimited play with 50% of the full game in them. We'll see how they sell compared to the restricted play 9 level configurations.

Cas :)

[BongPig]

Im with Mark 100%.
:)

[Anthony Flack]

Everyone keeps getting hung up on the definitions of these words, but that wasn't what the original post was about.

Yanuart was commenting about how a lot of people around here seem to focus a lot on maximising profits (and trying to appeal to the infamous casual market), rather than talking about making games that are wicked cool.

[princec]

And why not indeed? Though I'd really like to belong to the elite few who make a living from it, my games are just proving too whacked out and weird to appeal to hardly anyone. And that looks like how it's going to stay.

Cas :)

[papillon]

A good business-person?

There are plenty of reasons for someone to follow the path of choosing something because it makes good business sense. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are selling out. Sometimes paying the bills is important.

I cut most of my original message because I was having trouble phrasing it properly to deal with the fuzzy lines and therefore just went for the quick zing. :)

What I really wanted to say was that there's levels and levels. Paying absolutely *no* attention to what makes good business sense obviously means you're going to have problems as a business person. And many people who refuse to budge at all on their artistic vision probably end up having to release that vision as freeware and beg people to play it.

Paying too much attention to the business, imo, is when you stop giving your vision any voice at all. If you have Game Concept A that you're really excited about and you figure will sell X copies, and Game Concept B that is completely cookie-cutter but you think will sell X + 5 copies, and you automatically pick B and decide to never do A because more sales is obviously better... that's what I mean by letting business make the entire decision.

If your projections show that Game A can't possibly make enough money to support you and your team, then yeah, you should shelve that one, at least until you can think of a better way of doing it. If your projections show that Game A will do just fine, but Game B will do just that little bit better... and that little bit better isn't necessary to pay the bills... Then it seems fair to say that you've let money outspeak your vision, and therefore are selling out.

Quite different if you have some particular circumstances where you need to save up that extra bit of money to achieve something important to you that the outsider wouldn't know about. So really, only you can know if you're selling out for certain.

I'm also trying to figure out a way to express frustration with larger companies who sometimes decide that a project that is paying for itself quite well should be scrapped so the resources can be moved to a project that is doing even better. Probably makes sense to the business people, but it's ANNOYING. :)

[simonh]

Well I can relate to this argument. Super Gerball is a game I created because I actually wanted to create it. I spent two years making it, and ended up with something I was happy with.

Now I've released it, I've got feedback from some portals that the 'controls are too difficult'. 'The tilting mechanism will alienate people'. Alawar (the cheeky sods), even went as far as saying the game was 'not completely finished and playable'.

So I experimented for a while with making the game easier. I chopped and changed in an effort to come up with something more casual. But then I realised - the game was changing into something different - something I didn't like.

So now I've left the game the way it is. It may not sell as many as it could do, but to be honest I'd much rather that be the case than create a super-casual version that just feels horribly diluted, and unlike the vision I originally had for it.

[James C. Smith]

You have to make a game you like to play and can be proud of. You can’t try to make something you think someone else will like. But you would be wise to find a game you like to play AND you suspend many other people will also enjoy. You have to balance the two. I would not suggest you make the game you would like to play most. Assuming you are a hard core game player, chances are that one would not go over well with the masses or you won’t stand a chance of competing with the big boys. Like other says, don’t even thing about making a MMORPG or an FPS. But don’t make a match 3 or breakout game either unless you really like those games and think you have something valuable to add. Write your list of the 10 games you would like to make/play the most. Cross off the ones that would take for ever to make or are dominated by bug budget AAA game developers or would not sell to a mass market. Make whatever is left at the top of your list.

Has anyone heard of Crimsonland? I would hope so. That game rocks! And it sells well. Did anyone play the “casual” game made by the same guys? Ice Breaker ( http://www.reflexive.com/index.php?PAGE=game_detail&AID=106) is their attempt to “cash in” on the casual market. I don’t think it is doing nearly as well. Crimsonland sells about 20 times better than Ice Breaker. Maybe that is why they used a different company name (10 Ton and Game Gekko are primarily the same people)

[yanuart]

wow :eek: .. are you the author of ricochet a.k.a reflexive ?

[Promaginy]

btw the talk about Id is an indie is hillarious to me.. I mean if you consider they are indie based on they can do whatever they desire in development, do you consider microsoft is an indie ?

The books I read about the Games Industry does talk about Independent Studios vs Publisher Studios. I don't believe that id is owned by anybody else except the people who work there. This is in contrast to Bungie who was an independent studio and then was bought out by Micosoft.

So if independent = self-employment, then I would say that id is an indie. Are any of us any different? Even those like myself who do this part-time, it is still possible to partially self-employed.

To answer the original question - when does an idie become commercial? When the intention is to sell the game to make a profit. The question about "selling out" is ridiculous. Distribute your game as freeware or donationware if you have a problem with selling it.

[Dan MacDonald]

I agree 100% with what James said.

[Anthony Flack]

The question about "selling out" is ridiculous. Distribute your game as freeware or donationware if you have a problem with selling it.

There's a world of difference between "selling it" and "selling out".

[yanuart]

ugh.. yeah.. I'm not bit ching about wether you should sell your games or not and even if you do you're not a bad person nor I'm better than you are :D
I started this topic because I got confused since the term "indie" that I know means do-it-all-yourself and sometimes it also implies as an alternative way of doing things not in the mainstream course for the love of whatever that is.

for me.. i don't want to use the word indie, i rather think myself as another "game developer" period, who try to make games and hopefully earn enough in the balance of my spirit.

id is using publisher (a major one) to distribute its games.. does that make id still an indie ?? even though carmack still own the company by himself ??
the book you read probably need a better understanding..

[Nutter2000]

@yanuart: Sorry to nitpick but ID Software is owned by 5 people, one of whom is John Carmack.

Personally, I think being an "indie" game developer just means that you own your company/business and are responsible for the decisions affecting that company not a 3rd party, such as a publisher.

It is a very generic term though and encompases a lot more than just this community, I can't think of a particular better one though

[EpicBoy]

@yanuart: Sorry to nitpick but ID Software is owned by 5 people, one of whom is John Carmack.
On paper. In reality, Carmack is the only one who really matters and is, therefore, in control.

[Nutter2000]

Well, I'll certainly concede you the point if you know better than I. :)
Not having worked at Id I really couldn't say how much control the other directors have in the company.

Certainly in regards to the technology they use, John Carmack is probably in charge, but overall?
I couldn't say for certain, I don't know them that well.

Anyway, this thread really shouldn't warp into a discussion about how Id software works ;)

[EpicBoy]

I agree, I just thought it basically common knowledge that without Carmack, id would shrivel up and die. They might pump out a few Doom expansion packs, but beyond that they'd be dead in the water...

[yanuart]

@yanuart: Sorry to nitpick but ID Software is owned by 5 people, one of whom is John Carmack
ah yeah good point.. but when you ask people who own or run microsoft ? probably 3 out of 5 ppl will answer Bill Gates :D even though it's a public company now and bill gates only have a teenie weenie bit of stock

anyway this thread took much more responses than I'll ever expected to be, I'm sorry if somehow I offended ppl with what I wrote

[Coyote]

Technically, independent game developers (as the term is used in the game industry) are those game developers that are not owned or controlled by a single publisher. There are a LOT more independent studios out there than those that are lower-budget and self-publish over the Internet, though the latter is the definition we tend to use around here.

The thing is - if you are professional, you are commercial. Period. Is that selling out? I looked up the 'definition' of the slang term, and found it defined as, "The act of betraying one's principles or espoused cause." If your espoused cause is some big, "Down with portals and publishers" jihad, then yeah - that's selling out. Otherwise - I don't see the problem.

If you are making games to make some kind of statement or expression of opinion - go for it. But know that you are really making a game for yourself that maybe some people might enjoy. Most people make games for other other people to enjoy. If you are a shrewd and canny designer, maybe you can do a little of both.

[Nutter2000]

I agree, I just thought it basically common knowledge that without Carmack, id would shrivel up and die. They might pump out a few Doom expansion packs, but beyond that they'd be dead in the water...Spoken like a true Epic employee! :p

Seriously, I think there are some very talented people at Id Software who could easily keep producing AAA games if Carmack shot off to Mars on that rocket project of his.


ah yeah good point.. but when you ask people who own or run microsoft ? probably 3 out of 5 ppl will answer Bill Gates :D even though it's a public company now and bill gates only have a teenie weenie bit of stock
true :)

[Bluecat]

What I really wanted to say was that there's levels and levels. Paying absolutely *no* attention to what makes good business sense obviously means you're going to have problems as a business person. And many people who refuse to budge at all on their artistic vision probably end up having to release that vision as freeware and beg people to play it.

Definitely. If you're not paying attention to the business details, you don't have a business, you have a hobby. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

I reckon Blizzard are (were) a good example here. They seem to have the philosopy, if it isn't fun then it gets cut. They didn't let 'the vision' get in the way of making the gameplay fun.

Paying too much attention to the business, imo, is when you stop giving your vision any voice at all.

I don't know about that. Things do change, as well as personal vision. You might have started with the vision of making fun games, but a little success can be very addictive. Before long, the vision may change into a more business oriented one. It really does come down to what you are finding joy in.

I know quite a few people who started of as programmers, some of whom said that they'd never 'sell out' and become management, who are now managers! And, what's more important, they do actually enjoy their jobs. I've been a programmer for over twenty years. Always loved it, and have never wanted to do anything else. Now, I find myself wanting to develop games, but more than that, I want to have creative and financial control. I want my own business. That will entail becoming a manager. So... :)

If you have Game Concept A that you're really excited about and you figure will sell X copies, and Game Concept B that is completely cookie-cutter but you think will sell X + 5 copies, and you automatically pick B and decide to never do A because more sales is obviously better... that's what I mean by letting business make the entire decision.

If your projections show that Game A can't possibly make enough money to support you and your team, then yeah, you should shelve that one, at least until you can think of a better way of doing it. If your projections show that Game A will do just fine, but Game B will do just that little bit better... and that little bit better isn't necessary to pay the bills... Then it seems fair to say that you've let money outspeak your vision, and therefore are selling out.

But what if building a financially successful company is your primary vision, and the exciting game is a secondary vision?

In the case you mention, you are doing okay anyway. I'd suspect that if you were truely excited about a concept, then you would likely go for it. When you see a concept dropped by a developer, that they were previously excited about in favour of a more mundane but financially successful concept, I reckon there is probably something else factoring in. Maybe the concept wasn't really that much fun. Maybe it was too hard, or would have cost too much to develop.

Quite different if you have some particular circumstances where you need to save up that extra bit of money to achieve something important to you that the outsider wouldn't know about. So really, only you can know if you're selling out for certain.

Yep. Exactly. Which is really why I hate the term selling out. Outsiders (even indie developers) have no idea what is driving you, or what your needs are at the time. And... changing your vision is not selling out either.

I'm also trying to figure out a way to express frustration with larger companies who sometimes decide that a project that is paying for itself quite well should be scrapped so the resources can be moved to a project that is doing even better. Probably makes sense to the business people, but it's ANNOYING. :)

Well, that seems to be very common in the Television industry. Over the last couple of years there appear to have been several reasonably successful television shows axed because the networks wanted to devote less resources to the somewhat cheaper to make reality shows.

[Promaginy]

ugh.. yeah.. I'm not bit ching about wether you should sell your games or not and even if you do you're not a bad person nor I'm better than you are :D
I started this topic because I got confused since the term "indie" that I know means do-it-all-yourself and sometimes it also implies as an alternative way of doing things not in the mainstream course for the love of whatever that is.

for me.. i don't want to use the word indie, i rather think myself as another "game developer" period, who try to make games and hopefully earn enough in the balance of my spirit.

id is using publisher (a major one) to distribute its games.. does that make id still an indie ?? even though carmack still own the company by himself ??
the book you read probably need a better understanding..

Well, if the book is written by Bob Bates who has worked in the Industry a long time has a poor understanding, then who has the correct understanding? Size has nothing to do with it. A large game developer has the same goal and challenges as any small developer, the difference is just about scale.

[Promaginy]

There's a world of difference between "selling it" and "selling out".

Could'nt agree more, except that I think there are some developers who think they are the same thing. They think that by trying to appeal to customers they are giving up their artistic integrity. The only "selling out" that can take place is when you sell your company or game to somebody else. There should be nothing judgemental with this term... I hope that one day I too can sell my company to create a nice pool of capital to move onto my next project!

Because this thread has focused at times on definitions, I would argue that an Indie is simply is a Game Development company who is majority owned by the people creating & marketing the games.

I personally will be calling my company an Independent Micro Game Developer or something like that. The method I will use to distribute the game will be via the Shareware channel. But I would not want to be called a Shareware developer because I would say yes to the right Retail offer.

[Bluecat]

There should be nothing judgemental with this term...

Unfortunately, there is. It generally refers to someone who has let down the community by doing something against the collective vision. One of the dictionary.com entries defines selling out as: an act of betrayal.

[Promaginy]

Unfortunately, there is. It generally refers to someone who has let down the community by doing something against the collective vision. One of the dictionary.com entries defines selling out as: an act of betrayal.

So what is the collective vision of the Indie community?

How does a developer who decides to "sell out" betray the rest of the community?

How is the rest of the community harmed when a developer becomes commercially focused?

When did being an Indie Game Developer mean you joined a socialist commune?

Really, it is quite ridiculous to impose moralistic views on what amounts to developing and selling fun computer games. The content of some games can be judged on moral and ethic grounds, but that is a different realm altogether.

[Bluecat]

So what is the collective vision of the Indie community?

How does a developer who decides to "sell out" betray the rest of the community?

How is the rest of the community harmed when a developer becomes commercially focused?

When did being an Indie Game Developer mean you joined a socialist commune?

Really, it is quite ridiculous to impose moralistic views on what amounts to developing and selling fun computer games. The content of some games can be judged on moral and ethic grounds, but that is a different realm altogether.

And I never did. That's why I dislike the term sell out.

To thine own self be true.

[Michael]

The best way in my eyes: screw market research, screw all the games that sell good!
Go create the game that is really fun in your eyes and that you love to create and play.
Who knows, you might bring in a whole new genre on this market.


Enough with all the "me-too" games or "what are the succesful developers creating right now?"
Every person here is different (we aren't monkeys right?), why should we be making the same "gameplay based" games then???

Many developers out there are "scared" for creating something totally new because they don't wanna end up with a game nobody wants right?

Well, let me tell you this, it doesn't matter what game it is, as long as it's FUN!!!!!! it will sell.
The problem is the first steps when publishing online.
People of today's world don't like changes very much.
But if you put enough effort in your first publishing steps, you'll make it!
(how do you think all those different game categories have been started?)


Michael

[princec]

So, er, what's the magic trick of making games that everyone finds "fun" then?

Cas :)

[Mentat]

I have also thought long and hard about the types of games that I want to make. It is probably true to state that most people want to make money from their games, so inevitably thoughts turn towards the types of "indie" games that have proven more or less able to generate sales.

But even if you change your vision to something that you think may generate more sales, there is no guarantee that your game will actually sell.

So personally, I'm sticking with my own vision. Since I work a fulltime job, game development is more like a "serious hobby" to me. Certainly, I want my games to sell (when I finally complete one worthy of sale), but the whole point of me even entering the game dev field is so I can make something according to my own vision.

How often have you played a commercial game, and wished that they would have done things differently? It has happened too many times for me. I always end up saying things to myself like "this was fun, but I wish they would have....".

This is the niche that independant game devs can fill. We can saturate the market (whether freeware, shareware, or commercial) with unique expressions of artistic and game mechanic content.

It's sweet enough to share a creation that is 100% yours. All the more sweeter if it sells well.

[Promaginy]

The best way in my eyes: screw market research, screw all the games that sell good!
Go create the game that is really fun in your eyes and that you love to create and play.
Who knows, you might bring in a whole new genre on this market.


A Developer can only do what you suggest if it is operating from a hobby perspective. There is nothing wrong with starting out as a hobbiest and then moving into a commercial venture, but what you advocate goes against the purpose of every commercial venture.

Let us know how things turn out when you make your game that is so completely different than everything else done before it. I don't think such a thing exists or would be fun. People need reference points to make a decision whether something would be fun to play.

Actually, this has me thinking about another thread I would like to create...

[Michael]

So, er, what's the magic trick of making games that everyone finds "fun" then?

It's not a secret, or magic trick.
Fun is something we can't explain.

Another thing many developers think about is: "how can i make my game addictive"?
Can someone tell me what the word "addictive" really means?
If we would take 100 people and ask this same question, how many different stories would you hear? 100? or maybe 99?

Anyway, we can't explain this either.
Because it's different for all of us.

One thing i learned a lot from Steve P. was, NEVER FORGET THE TOP 6 THINGS PEOPLE WANT THE MOST.

I can tell you that the six things he named are worth gold!!

Try to insert these 6 things and your next game will most likely sell very, very good!


Michael

[ggambett]

One thing i learned a lot from Steve P. was, NEVER FORGET THE TOP 6 THINGS PEOPLE WANT THE MOST.
I can tell you that the six things he named are worth gold!!
Try to insert these 6 things and your next game will most likely sell very, very good!
Do you have a link? :D

[yanuart]

Another thing many developers think about is: "how can i make my game addictive"?
Can someone tell me what the word "addictive" really means?
If we would take 100 people and ask this same question, how many different stories would you hear? 100? or maybe 99?

Anyway, we can't explain this either.
Because it's different for all of us.

One thing i learned a lot from Steve P. was, NEVER FORGET THE TOP 6 THINGS PEOPLE WANT THE MOST.

I can tell you that the six things he named are worth gold!!

Try to insert these 6 things and your next game will most likely sell very, very good!
Michael
well.. what are they ? lemme guess..
1. s3x
2.frequent s3x
3.more s3x
4.5.6 ...
hmm steve p wrote abook and make sure we pay to know those 6 things :D
another way is to look at that article at gamasutra.com about natural funativity
about addictive... let's ask those tobbaco/ciggarettes companies to know their secrets

[BongPig]

It's not a secret, or magic trick.
Fun is something we can't explain.

Rubbish. Ive got a formula.
Gimmie $50 and ill e-mail it to you. ;)

[EpicBoy]

Actually, "fun" and "addictive" are indeed quantifiable. Think about every "fun" game you've played. I'm willing to bet that they all have certain attributes (no matter how abstract) in common.

That's how some companies are able to consistently produce fun and addictive games.

[BongPig]

I dunno bout that epicboy.
Sometimes its a fluke. For example, a talented individual, who constantly has excellent ideas and visions. And for all the time that individual workes at a company, its the company label that gets the Kudos. So they *seem* to have the fun thing down, untill he leaves/dies/discovers religion.

But even in that case, if you ask that individual, 'what is fun?', I bet even they couldnt answer you.
They would likely smile, shrug thier shoulders, and go on to make another kick ass game.

[EpicBoy]

But I believe that person does know what it is, even if they can't put it into words. For example, if you sat down with any game that you love (say, Super Mario World) and really thought about the mechanics that allow it to be fun I'll bet you could come up with a tangible list.

And I really don't care if anyone here hates Super Mario World - it's just an example. I believe that the fundamental things that make that game fun are the same things that make other games fun.

[Michael]

Well, i'm impressed to see that there are still developers who don't know the top 6 formula ;)

Anyway, here they are: * survival
* power
* love
* money
* recognition
* acceptance

By my experience i know it's almost impossible to insert them all 6 in your game (i for example have always problem with the "love" point :D )
But what you should try is to insert minimum 3-4 of them.

How you must do this is up to you afcorse because it depends the kind of game you have in mind.

To give you a very good example of a game that uses these 6: "The Sims"
Let us examine the game a little....
*Survival: keep your family,house,... alive.
*Power: you control those sims so you are a kind of GOD figure and they are
your slaves.
You tell them what to do, and they do it for you!
*Love: your wife, your kids,... the player get's emotionally attached to them.
*Money: too easy isn't it?
*Recognition: best house in the neighborhood, promotion at work,...
*Acceptance: maybe a little harder to say directly, but if you think a few minutes, you'll find some (it's been a while since i played the game so...)


You see?
It's a game that has all 6 right?
And what does it sell???
Yes, millions!!!
Why? because people will always find something they like in this game...


So this is actually *the* secret formulla highly succesful developers use.
And in my eyes it's worth gold!!!


Michael

[Applewood]

When does "indie" suddenly become errr... "commercial" ??
For me it was the same day I started my Indie business. I sell all my games!

[Ricardo C]

Can you give me any examples of people who are doing this

Derek Smart?

[EpicBoy]

The original situation presented was:

The only thing worse than an indie that sells out is an "artiste" that insists that his creative vision is so perfect he can completely ignore and even hold in disdain the rest of the industry and his audience.

So, no, not Derek Smart. Just because he DOES ignore and disdain the industry that doesn't mean his creative vision is perfect. It just means he lacks social skills.

[Ricardo C]

I didn't say his creative vision is perfect, just that, as the original post stated, "he insists it is" ;)

[tentons]

Well, i'm impressed to see that there are still developers who don't know the top 6 formula ;)
BTW, here's the article (http://www.dexterity.com/articles/seven-keys.htm).

The top six things that people want are survival, power, love, money, recognition, and acceptance. If you can find ways to tie any of these into your product, you will have some compelling benefits. Extracting the benefits behind your product can be challenging, but if you are getting any sales at all, then your product does have benefits. If you're not sure what your product's benefits are, just ask your customers why they bought it. All benefits are emotional in nature. For instance, customers may purchase a screen saver because they believe it will make them feel more creative, amused, peaceful, etc. Customers always buy on emotion and justify with fact, and if you're honest with yourself, you'll realize that you do this too.