Why no "indie culture" amongst game consumers?

[Martoon]

Indie music has a definite cultural trendiness amongst consumers. There are a lot of consumers that take a certain pride and satisfaction in supporting the indie bands that they perceive as being outside the corporate machine. The typical process is that some obscure band will be "discovered", lots of indie culture consumers start listening to them, they become popular and thereby commercially successful, at which point the indie consumers no longer consider them cool, but by this time they've made it into the commercial mainstream.

This doesn't happen with indie games. There's no cultural movement that has a preference for buying games from small indie developers. There are a few individuals with this preference (myself, for example), but certainly no sizeable subculture like there is for indie music. In fact, the consensus almost seems to be that consumers have an antipathy toward small developers. A lot of the small developers try to appear to consumers like the large game companies, because a consumer wouldn't want to buy a game that isn't from a "real" company.

Why isn't there an indie consumer culture for games? Why don't people express their individuality in their gaming like they do with music?

I can think of a few reasons, but I'd like to hear what other people think before I put them out there.

Also, is there anything we can do to engender an indie consumer culture in games?

[Coyote]

I think a lot of the "indie movements" you see in other media are a direct result of a strong marketing effort on the part of certain parties (or a consortium of parties).

I have heard that before Sundance, there was no real "indie culture" for movies. Then suddenly it was popular, "in"... but more importantly, these movies began getting some recognition outside of their tiny community. Yeah, Joe and Jane Beercan might still be unaware of any film that doesn't have at least three commercials during primetime, but it's still far more broadcast than it once was.

We don't have that marketing "voice" yet.

[Hiro_Antagonist]

I think that part of the reason is that we are a much younger industry then music or film. The indie scene hasn't had enough time to establish itself, nor for that matter, has the mainstream gaming industry. (At least not to music and film's standards.)

I think another reason is that, at least in contrast to music, there is a much stronger tie between budget size and percieved quality. All video game reviews offer scores for graphics and sound quality, which usually account for 40% or more of the game's total rating, or as perceived by customers, 'value'. Graphics (or more specifically, screenshots) are the token of currency used to represent games most often to potential customers, and higher budgets yield better graphics (and prettier screenshots.) The indies' strong point -- gameplay -- has a hard time being represented faithfully to potential customers.

I think the indie gaming scene is growing right now, due partially to the recent explosion in success of casual games, the growing acceptance of games in the population as a whole, and the commonly acknowledged lack of innovation in the big studios.

That's my 3 cents anyway. =P

-Hiro_Antagonist

[20thCenturyBoy]

Indie bands compete at the same level as big name bands - the CDs cost the same, the length of the album is the same, you get them in the same shops, they use the same instruments, and the recording process is the same. It's much easier to make a purchasing decision this way. Similar for indie films. With indie games however, the situation is different:

1. They are cheaper than AAA games.
2. You can't buy them in the same place as AAA titles.
3. The purchasing procedure is different from AAA titles.
4. They tend to have less content than AAA games.

All these cause "consumer confusion", which is bad. :(

In short, indie games aren't on the same playing field as AAA titles. This will change in time as online delivery progresses etc. The content problem is harder to fix - maybe better tools will enable this.

Hmmm I haven't really answered your question have I !

[James Gwertzman]

I believe that one important factor is quality.

The tools available to indie musicians or indie filmmakers are such that indie filmmakers or indie musicians can hit a "professional" level of quality. An indie film still looks like a "real" movie. It won't have huge sets or chase sequences, but often the intimate scale allows for an even more moving and effective story-telling.

ditto with indie music. If you go to a site like www.garageband.com and download some of the tracks that have been uploaded there you'll be surprised at how many of them sound like they were recorded in a professional studio.

On the other hand, because of the challenges inherent in making games, where you essentially need to create everything from scratch, it's MUCH harder to hit a professional level of quality. Many of the indie games that I've seen don't even come close. The rare indie developers who are able to hit a professional level of quality are generally the ones who do manage to break out and become successful.

[BantamCityGames]

Our day will come...

[Hiro_Antagonist]

I think one way for us to close the gap between so-called AAA and indie dev is, frankly, for indie games to get better, or rather, to choose products that they can do a better job of making.

Look at indie film. Successful indie films aren't successful because they're trying to compete against Star Wars or Matrix or Armaggeddon. No, they're mostly conversation-driven pieces -- Sideways or Clerks or Before Sunrise/Sunset, etc... These are great movies for what they are, and they succeed because they're trying to be something that they can, in fact, be great at. On the other hand, low-budget sci-fi movies are almost always bad, because they can't afford good sets, FX, etc.

I think a big failing of many indie game devs is that they don't step back and figure out what THEY can do RIGHT. Honestly, I think that's one of the many things PopCap did right -- they found a niche where they could make great, polished products on low budgets, and basically invented the casual games industry as a result.

I think that it's very rare that small-budget indie game studios can do 3D graphics well, and if they do, they need to be heavily stylized in order to compete. 3D games MMO's and RPG's, for example, need huge budgets to be competitive, but smaller-scale puzzle and strategy games, for instance, can be far more compelling as competitive titles with smaller budgets, if done right.

-Hiro_Antagonist

[JoeMaru]

I have to agree with James on the quality issue.

I used to be a big 'indie' music follower.. seeing obscure bands in small bars, and going with friends to see art film festivals and cruise the art galleries.

The bands we saw for the most part, were, at the time, pretty cutting edge and musically interesting. I saw Faith No More in a very small bar ten years before Limp Bizkit made rap-rock mainstream.

With music, there is also the social scene that revolves around the culture.. and this culture also has a big crossover with the art/art film crowd... there is something to be said for going to New York and seeing the same 100 people week after week in unplanned gatherings that revolve around alternative tastes.

Indie games, at this point in time, don't really have the social circle.. and realyl don't have the quality either. Most indie games suck. Sorry to put it so bluntly.. but most games have horrible production quality built on top of horribly implemented games. As quality rises, as technology becomes less of an issue, and better quality in general start to appear... we will start to see people following the indie games scene.

There also needs to be a venue for it.. the IGF at the GDC just does not cut it.. it is a gameshow for Game Developers..and an audience is going to be reached, a different venue has to happen in order to make it happen (much like what Sundance did for Indie Film).

Some sort of aggregation of good (and hip) indie games needs to be there in order for the indie game cultue of players to commune.

On a good note, the masses are starting to get sick of the poorly done hollywood licenses and endless sequels.. and many will eventually start to look for something else.

[JPGinLA]

I like the points about quality and Hiru's "do what you can do well" argument.

Most of that, though, and the other comments go to conversion rate issues, IMHO. And I think quality is not the crux of why Indie games are not generally more successful. There are tons of well-made movies that completely suck but which still make boatloads of money. The same is true for music and novels.

I believe Mass distribution is the key.

Every shareware game has some convresion rate (X%). Even the worst gets converted at some miniscule X%. So, I belive we are all in the business of getting distribution of our games, primarily through visitors to our websites. Even at the lowest X%, if you have enough visitors and thereby enough downloads, then X% * that very large number = $$$ in your pocket.

The difference between small, less monetarily successful author/publishers and any sized, more monetarily successful author/publishers is traffic and distribution. Get enough downloads and the conversion rate will kick in and pay like an ATM!

Many of you spend hours discussing this exact issue in regard to "large portals" and staying on their new list or top ten list or whatever. The difference between being on a top ten list and being at the lower end of the home page or worse on the "Next" page is geometric!

Independent movies and music are only financially successful after a distributor or publisher signs them to a distribution deal. The Internet has leveled the playing field for digital distribution so now it is up to you to take advantage and get the traffic to your site. How? This forum is chock full of ways. Pick anyone one and do it: create useful content on your site; involve others and get links to your site from theirs; advertise; run contests; whatever else!

We encourage users of any of our games to try the others. We have a pretty active discussion board. We have freebies on the site such as ecards. We have hi-score lists. We have player created levels. We have player created graphics. And so on!

Distribution is the key to selling anything! The expression about building a better mousetrap and the customers beating a path to your door is only true if the customers know the better mousetrap exists!

Just MHO!

-JPG

[Anthony Flack]

I agree with the "because most indie games still suck" views expressed above, by (coincidentally?) some of the indie gaming's most professional developers. A lot of indie music and film is really, really good. Some of the best music and films in the world. Indie games are still a bit rough on the whole, although the overall production quality is improving in leaps and bounds these days (happily). Indie doesn't mean sloppy or amateur.

The other thing is that indie music and film often is genuinely revolutionary and cutting edge. Us indie celebrants are often claiming independent games to be the home of innovation... only to have regular people give it a look and say, "looks more like the home of cheap rip-offs to me". And of course they have a point.

The independent scene certainly is a natural breeding ground of radical ideas. But is this reflected in the current state of indie games? Largely, no. I'd say the mainstream industry still has more originality on the whole.

The greats of indie music and film are motivated by a desire to be different, and a deep love of their art form. They commonly operate at a loss, working to scrape together enough money to finance their artistic creations and considering themselves lucky to break even. Contrastingly, the indie game scene is largely dominated by a desire to make money, whatever way works. And while many do manage to be quite profitable, it's often at the expense of the games they really wanted to make. And it's not the kind of attitude that's likely to encourage a passionate fan base.

Certainly that's not true across the board - we have all kinds here - but that seems to me to be the biggest general difference between indie music and film, and indie games.

JPGinLA - wasn't the question regarding the large, passionate community of people that champion indie music and film? And not (for once) about how to maximise profit?

[JPGinLA]

JPGinLA - wasn't the question regarding the large, passionate community of people that champion indie music and film? And not (for once) about how to maximise profit?

heh!

I guess we measure "large, passionate community of people" differently!

I would count them if they download, play and pay.

:-)

How else do you know they are there? And how can they be passionate if they don't support their passion by paying for it?

-JPG

[Diragor]

The tools available to indie musicians or indie filmmakers are such that indie filmmakers or indie musicians can hit a "professional" level of quality. If you go to a site like www.garageband.com and download some of the tracks that have been uploaded there you'll be surprised at how many of them sound like they were recorded in a professional studio.

Maybe you would be surprised how many of them were recorded in professional studios.

I believe the situation is very much the same for indie game developers as it is for musicians and filmmakers. To produce a professional product you need (a) talent and (b) professional tools. I'm most familiar with indie music production so I'll use that for comparison purposes.

To produce a professional quality music CD you first need talent. If your singer is especially good or the lyrics really speak to a lot of people, maybe you can play up that strength in your marketing and make up for a lack of talent on other instruments (games: it's fun and addictive but unattractive). If you're a singer/songwriter and you can't play other instruments (designer/programmer with no art skills) you can get friends to back you (anonymous artist from the 'net working for royalties) or you can pay pros to lay down some tracks (hire a pro artist for cash). As far as the quality of the recording goes (let's liken that to game art), you can either go low budget and record in your house on whatever gear you can afford (Windows Paint) and hope that the quality of your music will shine through the poor production. You can spend bigger bucks on better gear (Photoshop Elements, maybe trueSpace or something) and still rely on your own amateur recording skills. You can even buy the full-on pro gear if you've got the cash (say, Maya) but are you really going to get the most out of it? If you want the best possible presentation of your music you can pay to record at a professional studio with an experienced engineer and/or producer (hired artist using Maya and handing you art that looks like it was done for id Software). I've made some gross generalizations and loose analogies but I hope you get the point.

My point is not to tear your post apart but to dispell the notion that it's impossible for an indie game developer to compete in the big leagues. It's no more impossible than it is for the amateur musicians and filmmakers out there - it takes talent and money to start reaching into the mainstream. Whatever talent you lack, and most people can't do it all, you're going to have to find somebody with that talent and make it worth their while to contribute to your project. Indies (music, film and games) are still shut out of the biggest distribution channels available to the majors - when's the last time you saw an indie music CD in Wal-Mart? - but there's no reason an indie product can't be just as good or better, in many ways, than the biggies.

[JoeMaru]

It's no more impossible than it is for the amateur musicians and filmmakers out there -

In the future this may be true.. but right now, sadly, it is not. You can buy time in a recording studio to cut some tracks.. you can rent (or buy) and Arriflex and rent some soundgear and start shooting.

an amatuer game developer can't just write a design document in word, and then expect it to compile and run.. the technology is just not there yet... someday it may be, but at this point in time, I don't think the comparison is a good one.

and outsourcing production of art assets (or code) is not as straightforward as film or sound production. It is not impossilbe to do it, but at this point in time it is indeed much harder to make a professional looking game than it is to make a professional looking piece of film or a professional sounding piece of music.

[Anthony Flack]

You think? I went to film school. I reckon indie game development is still easier, and cheaper, than indie filmmaking. Which is not to suggest that either is particularly easy or cheap.

[Chris Evans]

I don't think the majority of Indie games "suck". And personally I think it's a bit elitist to say that.

I'm not saying all Indie games are great and innovative, but the good/bad ratio isn't much worse than retail games. It's just retail games have $2-10 million budgets, so it makes the turds smell a little nicer than the Indie stinkers.

Sure a lot of Indie games have some design flaws, bugs, and rough graphics. But minus the rough graphics, the same could be said for a lot of retail games. I've rented quite a few console games lately for research and many of them are riddled with design flaws as well. But the pretty graphics and high production values does a decent job of covering it up. Console games don't have many bugs, but that's because you're dealing with a static platform. However, even PC retail developers (the few that are left) struggle with compatibility issues across different systems and graphics cards. So of course an Indie with even less resources is probably going to have compatibility issues or inconsistencies on different systems. Again, you shouldn't say most Indie games "suck" because of this.

Do Indie games need to improve? Definitely. But we should work within our limits. I like the "Action Movie" analogy someone brought up. Indie movies that try to go the Sci-Fi or Action route usually look really corny. Only certain Indie movies have potential to hit mass market. Usually the smaller focused ones. I think probably the same can be said for Indie games.

I think we're in a stage where we are trying to figure out who exactly will buy our games. We know about the casual market demographics, but there also seems to be an unknown market out there with an unknown size. However, I think the fact that the GameTunnel awards did so well means our best games are worthy even to Hardcore gamers. So I think we should drop this attitude that the majority of our games are garbage and that's why no one buys our games.

I think the GameTunnel awards proved that we have quite a few good games in the Indie scene already and many of them just need more exposure. Obviously if we make better games, it will be easier to get more exposure but the current state of the Indie games is not in the gutter as some of you are asserting.

[MattV]

I think there is a much stronger sense of culture and "hip" community around games consoles than in the pc/mac world, excepting the fps game market. If we could all release our games on Playstation2 I think it'd be much easier for the mass consumers to understand and buy into. The licensing cartels run by the console manufacturers inhibit any true underground culture building up around their platforms.

[princec]

I'm not sure if anyone's pointed it out yet but 99.9% of indie bands wallow in obscurity and total poverty just like 99.9% of us game developers...

Cas :)

[Nonz]

A recent conversation.

Me: I was playing Gish the other day...

Brother: What's a Gish?

Me: It's a game, pretty good one too. You control this ball of tar you see and...

Brother: What sort of game has you playing the part of a tar ball?

Me: A game developed by an independant developer...

Brother: Oh, you mean a game that sucks.

*Cue sound of someone being beaten about the head and shoulders with with BBQ tongs.*

It's a public conception that any game that hasn't been created by a large company for huge amounts of money must be low quality. Yeah I know, it's wrong but until it's changed Indie games will be the poor cousin that no one talks about in polite company.

Maybe one day hollywood will make a movie where the hero will like playing an Indie game and things will start to turn around.

Nonz.

[BongPig]

Generally, im with Anthony. Indie games do suck.
The reasons for that are many, and not entirly the developers fault.

The film and music industries seem to love thier *indie* sections. So much so that some of the biggest publishers/studios often set up smaller satallite studios to cater for the undiscovered and more cutting edge stuff.
Ive often seen interviews with big film directors, and all they seem to want to talk about is the work they're doing with some unknowns, and how cool it all is.
There really is a general love from the big studios toward the smaller, indie crew in music and film. They love that section of thier industry.

However, in games its the complete opposite. We get no love or respect from any of the big AAA houses. Every time I read an interview with Mr Uber Director from some AAA dev, all they ever do is brag about thier own games and how they are special compared to everything else.
No searching for the latest underground indie thing. They dont even care.
Like Ive said many times before, the egos in this industry are amazing.

But, its a baby of an industry. All the current development bosses are the same guys who founded the industry 15 years ago. They are like children with loads of money. Once this generation feck off, we may start to see a more mature industry starting to form.

[chanon]

I agree with the quality statements.

I'd like to add that I think a "culture" needs to have a "community" for it to exist/thrive. Indie games that have an online community are probably the ones that will be able to help create the "culture".

There is also a "coolness" factor in following the latest indie music or seeing the latest great indie film. People can relate intimately to them and so they talk about it and so a good artist or film creates "buzz". This further feeds interest into other indie artists/films.

And as BongPig said, the big labels will be interested in them. This is also because like 20th century boy said that indie music/film compete almost at the same level of quality as the mainstream.

I agree that we have to focus on what we can do best.

So I think if we want to create this "new culture" we need to think how we can create "buzz" with our games which will help create a "community" and make it have a "coolness" factor.

I wonder if women aged over 40 would want to be part of this "new culture" :D

[Ricardo C]

Generally, im with Anthony. Indie games do suck.
The reasons for that are many, and not entirly the developers fault.

The film and music industries seem to love thier *indie* sections. So much so that some of the biggest publishers/studios often set up smaller satallite studios to cater for the undiscovered and more cutting edge stuff.
Ive often seen interviews with big film directors, and all they seem to want to talk about is the work they're doing with some unknowns, and how cool it all is.
There really is a general love from the big studios toward the smaller, indie crew in music and film. They love that section of thier industry.

However, in games its the complete opposite. We get no love or respect from any of the big AAA houses. Every time I read an interview with Mr Uber Director from some AAA dev, all they ever do is brag about thier own games and how they are special compared to everything else.
No searching for the latest underground indie thing. They dont even care.
Like Ive said many times before, the egos in this industry are amazing.

But, its a baby of an industry. All the current development bosses are the same guys who founded the industry 15 years ago. They are like children with loads of money. Once this generation feck off, we may start to see a more mature industry starting to form.

I don't know... Big corporate studios seem to take indie filmmakers under their wing because of the prestige factor. Indie films are generally not good investments if you consider only their box office potential (unless you're a mainstream-friendly indie like a Kevin Smith or a Robert Rodriguez), but because a roster of well-regarded indie films can be worth its weight in gold come awards season. Awards mean prestige, prestige means more high-profile filmmakers and actors will be open to working with you, which in turn means potentially huge revenue down the line. They're not doing it "for the love", they're doing it to further their "street cred" within the film industry.

If gaming awards were as influential with the public as the Academy Awards, the Golden Globes, or the Palm D'or, then we might see the big publishers making an effort to embrace indie game development, if only to enhancve their reputation. Until then, we're just competition. Low budget, small competition, but still, we represent a rogue segment of the industry that cuts into their yearly profits. And so we are the enemy.

[MattV]

We get no love or respect from any of the big AAA houses. Every time I read an interview with Mr Uber Director from some AAA dev, all they ever do is brag about thier own games and how they are special compared to everything else.
Sometimes they helpfully declare bedroom coding to be dead or say something along the lines of "but those one-person games don’t count really do they?" (thanks Martin (http://www.zoonami.com/briefing/2004-09-02.php)). I've started collecting these anti-indie quotes, hopefully they'll be amusing rather than confirming to me in later life.

[Davaris]

I think the main problem the Indie game scene has is the lack of artists willing to work on projects for royalties or no pay. All of the people making the games seem to be programmers and they have next to no art skills.

So my question is why aren't artists interested in making Indie games?

[BongPig]

I disagree Ricardo.
Ive too often seen a mainstream director like Tarrentino enthusing about some little, non-profitable thing that excites him. I accept that theres some kudos to be earned, but theres no denying the love they have for new and interesting ideas, regardless of budget or mainstream viability.
Most film directors love film. Its as simple as that. If some interesting little piece comes to thier attention, they get excited by it, not threatened like games people. Thats why you hear so many stories of directors spunking away huge chunks of thier personal cash to realise a dream that ends up making them no money.

However, I get the vibe from games people that they hate all other developers 'because they suck, and we're better'. Its wierd. Like theres no real respect going on. Whenever a stunning title comes out, rather than the industry insiders getting excited, they often come out with statements like, 'I had that idea years ago.' Ive heard that shit hundreds of times, like the industry hates itself or something. Its disgusting. Funny, ive never heard a film director make comments like that.

Its that lack of respect in games that makes me so angry and want to pack it all in.

[Ricardo C]

I should clarify... When I say "studios", I mean "the money people", not the actual creators. Tarantino (forever an indie at heart) is exactly the type of person the studios hope to attract by embracing indie films. The directors, writers, and actors are often in it for the love of filmmaking. The studios, not so much. But they nourish the indie segment of the industry because it's good for business in the long run. The retail gaming industry has nothing to gain by embracing our end of the field. And really, I like to think that's ok, because it means one day we'll overthrow them (hey, I never said I wasn't naïve and wildly optimistic ;)), rather than be assimilated into what they are today ;)

[Vorax]

I am somone, who until recently, was very much on the other side of this discussion. I was a consumer only.

Up until about 6 months ago, my impression of indy games was this:
- They generally suck in quality
- They often have adware or spyware in them
- They are mostly rip-offs of other peoples ideas
- If any of them actually were worth playing, a publisher would pick them up and that would be my que to consider buying

I am not a casual gamer. My favorite type of games are generally action/adventure/rpg. I think I am typical of "Joe gammer" in that respect. The thing is, "Joe gammer" is looking for something different in one of those genres, that has exceptional game play and hopefully very good production values. I don't see much in indy gamming that fits that bill. There are some very original titles, with high production values, but those titles fight the stigma of being an "Indy" game (the stuff above).

I guess what I am saying is that indy games are their own worst enemy in a way and are thier own biggest barrier to getting a sub-culture for players. The people you want to attract, the non-casual players, are the ones who have the worst impression of these games. Non-casual players care about the games they play, while casual players generally don't research games enough to see or care if a game sucks in production value or originality. Which probably explains why the most successful indy games tend to be aimed at casual players, though that group will likely never form a culture.

My suggestion: Build games YOU would want to play and that your friends would want to play. How many people here are building games they would never buy or play had someone else developed them? Indy film makers and musicians create things for themselves, they aren't trying to make something for the "casual" movie goers/listeners. It is their art and passion about their vision that endeers their followers and builds the culture, not their desire to target a market segment. People targeting a market segment is often what leads to that list I showed above, and is what is hurting the indy developers with a vision....IMHO.

[BongPig]

I can agree with that Ricardo. :)
To be clear, im only talking about the creators in each industry. My statements about film are aimed at directors, producers etc. Thats where the love comes from. Same with games. Im talking about the developers not publishers.
Im astounded how little games developers get excited when another dev house does something very cool compared to the film and music industries.
This is not a good thing. The sooner these dinosaurs become extinct, the sooner our industry can start dishing out a bit more love and respect.

So to go back to the Tarantino example. I cant think of one single big AAA games director ( indie or not ) who has ever given me the impression they love other peoples games. Theres never any credit given from one dev to another. However, everytime I see Tarantino waffling about other peoples films, he's wide eyed, and looking very excited... and modest I might add.

Too add... this does NOT apply to the Japanese. They love thier shit. Man, they get sooo excited everytime any dev does something interesting.
Thats the level of respect I would like to see in the west.

[tentons]

So my question is why aren't artists interested in making Indie games?
That's not the case in my experience. There are a lot of artists willing to work this way if the project is interesting enough. Look at how many good artists are working for free on FPS mods. It's like having a good script in the movie biz. You can get big names for cheap if they like your script enough (Johnny Depp takes pay cuts all the time for good scripts with small budgets).

There just aren't that many barriers. It seems a lot of people create barriers in their minds and that holds them back. The technology is there, the market is there--it's the ideas and execution that will allow any of us to excel or fail.

[Anthony Flack]

As far as the artist side goes... well, there's me! I was initially reluctant to tackle the programming side of things but it was clear that it was the only way I was going to get things to happen. And now it sounds like Evak is starting down that path, too.

Ultimately, though, it's not programmers or visual artists who should be sweeping to the fore - it's game designers. They'll probably have to take on programming and/or art duties as well, of course. Maybe they're already working as programmers and/or artists, and the great game designer inside is busy incubating.

And yes, more love, less market research! This may have unpleasant side effects like forcing you to take a job washing dishes to finance your dreams (or equivalent). Indie musicians and filmmakers know all about this, though. It's just that programmers tend to have this idea that everything they do should be worth a fortune, somehow.

But for the time being, I can't really see any big studio gaining much prestige from supporting indie games, award ceremony or no. They would largely be an embarassment to them. I think there is a degree of self-delusion among indie developers that the games are better than they actually are.

Do you think indie games would sweep the innovation awards? Most indie games really are quite, quite awful, and I don't think it's elitist to say so. If you take the 100 worst games of the year, chances are, 100 of them will be indie releases.

And I say this as someone who is completely behind the principle of independent game development. The indie way is the only way, for me. But that doesn't mean it produces unusually high yields of great games; at least not yet.

There are a small handfull of really brilliant indie games released a year. There are a larger number of competently produced products done in an attempt to turn a quick buck. A few interesting ideas that don't quite work out for one reason or another. And there are a whole lot of ghastly, horrendous failures, in varying degrees of ghastliness and horrendosity. What do you expect? It's a really, really hard thing to do well. Failure comes with the territory, too.

[Anthony Flack]

"but those one-person games don’t count really do they?"


Good article, thanks!

And you know, I think he's absolutely right if you take it in context. He was given the task of designing and implementing a multi-million dollar movie license console game for Nintendo. In terms of preparing you for that... making one-person hobby games probably don't really give you much in the way of hard experience to draw down upon.

[BongPig]

Anthony, I agree that if you took the current batch of indie games they compare very poorly with mainstream stuff.
But all of us ( even the most cynical like yourself and myself ) have to agree that there are clearly some very talented minds inside the indie movement, even if they are 1 in 1000.
So, it begs the question, are there no big developers out there who love games enough to recognise these talents? I know if I was a bigger developer with a bit of cash I would certainly be wondering what some of these talented loonies could achive if we helped them out with resources.

So, even though I do agree that most independent games are shite, the industry as a whole doesnt even seem willing to support the 0.1% who are doing interesting stuff. They only are interested in intergrating you into thier mother-hive rather than keeping your creative freedom and helping you develop your ideas.
As long as thats the way, indie games'll be crap for many many more years to come.

[Andy]

Well. I've just read the starting message and run through some answers. So, just my own vision - please, pardon if I repeat somebody.

Everything depends from your aiming of being indie. If you are here to show how original - that's one type of story. If you are here to get some money - this is obviously another way. I can give the vision only on second one - where we are trying to build our own road.

Audience dictates the demand. Most of current audience ready to pay for small games are elder peoples who stuck to such ideas. I don't see what it so bad here. Not every games using standard gameplay elements is just dumb clone. Some of them are pretty well done development of old ideas.

Some devs are too sticky to Steve Pavlina ideas - they probably should remember that Steve was developing his vision years ago and times were changed significantly.

Speaking about genre, visual and audio representation - if exclude the personal preferences of thread starter we should to agree that pretty simple 3-in-row puzzle is really very original if look on it from the position of retail pushed AAA titles. You just have to agree - you can't find amount of such NEW titles on the current retail market.

And of course you always should remember about shareware specific - some Steve's ideas still actual! :) - try to catch their attention in five minutes with something original where you need to spend two days just to study the controls. ;)

Just my two cents,

[Chris Evans]

Well yes, if we're comparing Indie games to the production values and content of mainstream games, then yes most Indie games "suck".

Also, part of the problem someone already brought up is that a lot of us end up making games we don't like or understand. There seems to be a lot of people here with hardcore gaming tastes, but many of them resort to making casual games in attempt to get by financially. This results in a lot of uninspired casual games. Indie films/music don't sell out so early. ;)

Game art is definitely a problem as well. Probably the biggest problem. It makes a decent Indie game look bad and a bad Indie game look horrible. Again, I think there are a lot of bad retail games but the productions values and familiar IPs do a good job of hiding it.

Maybe I'm an optimist, but I still have the belief that 99.9% of Indie games aren't complete garbage. Then again I'm not necessarily comparing every Indie game to mainstream retail games. We should improve our games, but I think it's folly to chase after mainstream games. We have to do something different. If the only judge of quality is Gran Turismo, Final Fantasy, Medal of Honor, and other retail blockbusters then 99.9% of Indie games will ALWAYS be crap.

I think our standards should be whether our games are fun and pleasing to the eye for the intended audience. Not whether it equals a AAA game. Because the latter goal we'll never achieve unless we get funding from publishers like Bongpig is suggesting. I don't like to think all my future games are destined to be crap if I don't ever get a publisher...

[MattV]

Good article, thanks!
No probs.
And you know, I think he's absolutely right if you take it in context. He was given the task of designing and implementing a multi-million dollar movie license console game for Nintendo. In terms of preparing you for that... making one-person hobby games probably don't really give you much in the way of hard experience to draw down upon.
Yeah, possibly not the best example of a developer knocking the indie scene but he still chose to say something negative. I'd like to think that one of the reasons Goldeneye was so successfull was precisely that the people involved were passionate enough to have worked on their own hobbyist projects beforehand, rather than dismissing it. Tarentino never said "Jeez all that time working in a video rental shop watching films was a right waste of time when I started working on my movies".

[JoeMaru]

A couple of comments..

We have to remember that a lot of the people working for the big shops started out at home making their own little games before entering the industry. You don't just suddenly become a game designer at a big shop overnight. I have personally been appraoched by people at the GDC who said ' we love we you are doing and really liked ThinkTanks'.. so the idea that they are all ego driven elitists is one that I have not personally experiencd first hand.

the idea that we have to re-contextualize the mindset of the audience in terms of quality is a valid one. At the moment, the only context the buying public has is the production quality. You don't get special consideration as an indie for being 'indie' in the eyes of the purchasing public.. if the quality 'appears' low, then it will be percieved as a low quality title no matter how good the gameplay.

One thing to point out here is that venues for distirbution (be they art house movie theatres or alternative record stores) do a good job of presenting to the buying public the films/music that have already passed through a vetting process. At art house cinema, you don't get shown the worst of the indie films made, only the best ones.

Again, it should be remembered that going to a film or a show (band) is a social experience, and part of the draw to that is the experience itself.. and this is something that makes it very hard for games.. especially single player games.

the approach most take here is to publish their game on their own site. While this may be the best way to get $$$, what you lose is an aggregation of a community that *may* form a culture of indie gaming. Right now there is no good place for them to congregate and form a culture. As developers, we are guilty of contributing to that by collectively waging a war against aggregation.

lastly, I don't think it is elitist to say that most indie games suck.. I think it is just being in touch with reality. Most are sub standard when it comes to production values and, most importantly, when it comes to gameplay.. many many many are just confusing and not a whole lot of fun to play. Unlike music or film, the trash has been taken out of the loop long before most will ever see it (and having sat through some film student presentations.. I can assure you that there are a LOT of really sucky films out there).. the internet makes this worse.. people looking for games are drowning in a sea of garbage.. until there is a way for them to not have to separate the garbage from the gold, it will be very hard for a culture to develop.

This is one reason why places like Real are still around. they have realized that people desire this aggregation and a process that gets rid of the junk for them. Something to think about...

[Diragor]

In the future this may be true.. but right now, sadly, it is not. You can buy time in a recording studio to cut some tracks.. you can rent (or buy) and Arriflex and rent some soundgear and start shooting. An amatuer game developer can't just write a design document in word, and then expect it to compile and run..

Sorry I'm a little late with this reply, but you're comparing apples to oranges. Writing a game design doc = thinking up a song melody and writing it down. Buying studio time and recording tracks = actually coding and creating content for a game.

Since this thread has wandered slightly on either side of the track, let me say that I agree that the "scene" around indie games isn't quite up to the film and music scenes, IMHO. But when we're talking about the expense and difficulty of creating a polished-looking, high quality game I think indie game devs have it easy compared to those other fields. We've got dirt cheap PCs, good free dev tools, and if you can handle the art you've got almost no expenses. If you want great art you can contract it out to talented freelancers for not that much money. If your game flops you've lost nothing but your time.

On the other hand, I've been playing in serious rock bands for at least 14 years and not only have I never pocketed a dollar (everything goes right back into band expenses) but it's cost me thousands in instruments, equipment, rehearsal room rent, travel and studio time. Read Bruce Campbell's book that's in part about the making of Evil Dead and tell me making that film was as easy as sitting at your desk coding a game in your free time. Sure, indie filmmaking has changed somewhat, but you've still got the crew, actors, gear, schedules, probably investors, etc., etc.

[JoeMaru]

Buying studio time and recording tracks = actually coding and creating content for a game

this is what I was trying to point out.. one is buying time in a studio.. one is sitting down and actually 'making' the product. The process of creating a game is much different then recording music. The design decisions made in production that are actually made by the people making the art/code have a HUGE impact on the product. The process of making a game as a 'director' offers much less control than the making of a film or an album. In software development terms, the design phase of the project consumes the majority of the production. If you were to outsource this phase to a team that *could* produce the product for you, you would end up with a totally different product, and the quality variance could be very great depending on who you chose to do the production for you.

I understand what you were trying to say, but my opinion is that your comparision is not *yet* applicable.

If your game flops you've lost nothing but your time.

time is the only non renewable resource we have as individuals. To me, it is more valuable than money. You can make more money, you cannot create time you haev lost.

[Chris Evans]

Maybe I'm selective in which Indie games I play that's probably why I'm not so pessimistic. I usually play games that are recommended.

Otherwise, I pretty much agree with everything Joe said. We don't really have a vetting process for most Indie games and very little consolidation outside the portals. If you like Indie action/adventure games where would you go to find them? What about Indie shooters and RPGs? GameTunnel, DIY, and Grab.com are really the only places that tout the "Indie Game" brand. While Grab.com is a step in the right direction, they're still heavily slanted towards casual and flash games. GT and DIY don't have the exposure yet.

It'd be GREAT if a site like Gamespot or IGN did a little Indie spotlight every month. But that probably still wouldn't be enough. Also mainstream media has little incentive to cover our games since we can't afford to buy Ad space from them and games like Gish still won't sell magazines like Half Life will.

the idea that we have to re-contextualize the mindset of the audience in terms of quality is a valid one. At the moment, the only context the buying public has is the production quality. You don't get special consideration as an indie for being 'indie' in the eyes of the purchasing public.. if the quality 'appears' low, then it will be perceived as a low quality title no matter how good the gameplay.

I really agree with this. We'll always lose the battle where Production Value equals Quality. Most of us just don't have the resources.

[Diragor]

time is the only non renewable resource we have as individuals. To me, it is more valuable than money. You can make more money, you cannot create time you haev lost.

My point was that when a band/film flops you lose all of that time AND a crapload of money, as opposed to just the time if you're making a game mostly by yourself.

I really don't see where you see so many differences in the making music and games (and film, for that matter, but I'm much less knowledgable in that field). Spend a few months with my band and tell me that you spend more time and effort writing a design document than we spend writing and arranging an album's worth of songs. Listen to my version (with me playing all the instruments) of a song I wrote for the band and then listen to the band record it and tell me it's not the same as hiring artists and trying to get them to produce what you envision for a game.

I think the processes involved in all of these creative fields are more similar than you think. If you're not a musician or filmmaker then maybe it just doesn't look like it from the outside.

[svero]

I dont know about this indie games suck relative to retail titles. Maybe I haven't been playing enough mainstream stuff or console games, but just about every title I've bought from mainstream high end studios in the last couple of years has sucked big time with few exceptions. In most cases what you had was a bloated boring game with nice "bought" production values. Is that what we mean by good? Same is true of most indie titles of course. Most of them are pretty bad, but im not sure the ratio of bad games to good ones is much different in retail than it is in independently produced titles. Seems the gems are far and few between in both spheres.

[Hiro_Antagonist]

If we could all release our games on Playstation2 I think it'd be much easier for the mass consumers to understand and buy into. The licensing cartels run by the console manufacturers inhibit any true underground culture building up around their platforms.

You don't actually believe this is feasible, do you? The exact reason all console manufacturers charge money for licensing and specifically choose which titles can be licensed or not is specifically to prevent poor games from entering the market.

You may remember the Atari 2600. The Atari 2600 died because too many companies released too many poor games at the end of its lifecycle. The market was flooded with titles, and customers didn't know which games were worth buying, because there was no seal of quality, nor control over which titles made it to market. People bought the cheaper games, and then got burned from the poor experience. Since there were no alternative consoles that assured quality, people got turned off to console gaming, and the market died for a couple/few years.

With the NES began strict licensing, and when Tengen started making those funky black cartridges to get around the physical shape limitations of the patent, they were (rightfully) sued and stopped by Nintendo because they were still infringing on the patent and potentially destroying the hardware's value. The video game companies and the courts both agreed that in order for this whole console thing to work and offer a pleasant experience for customers, these control mechanisms are necessary. Consoles are only viable in their current form today precisely because of these mechanisms.

In short, if strict licensing didn't exist for consoles, consoles and console games wouldn't be as relatively high-quality as they are. They would be harbors for bug-ridden games of questionable quality... like PCs. =)

Let's count our blessings that we do have the PC venue to do our thing, but let's be honest about recognizing that console rules are the way they are for good reason, even if it's not convenient for our specific position...

-Hiro_Antagonist

[Diragor]

In general I'd say most retail games look better than most indie games but I don't think there's any difference in the frequency of overall really good games. I believe that 90% of everything is crud (http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/s/SturgeonsLaw.html). Even if everybody doesn't agree on which 10% is good, I think there's only a small handful of games, music, movies or anything else that was released in the past year that you could point to and say "these are really good and are totally worth buying".

[gmcbay]

My take:

Indie music is not a good comparison to indie gaming because the amount of effort is not on the same scale. Not that I'm saying that writing good music is easy, but it is achievable for one really talented person in a relatively short time frame. Same with novels. Games *used* to be on the same scale, back when one guy could put out a pretty competitive game in a couple of months (think 2600, C64), but now the art requirements are beyond that being resonable, even for games where the art is far from the bleeding edge.

Indie movies are closer to an apples to apples comparison (though not an exact match), because there is a lot of planning and teamwork effort that need to go into the production to make it a good one. The comparison here, though, falls apart when it comes to funding systems. It isn't that uncommon for an "indie" movie (one you'd actually see at the local arthouse theatre, not someone's film school work) to be funded at around a million dollars... haven't seen too much of that happening for indie games.

[svero]

You don't actually believe this is feasible, do you? The exact reason all console manufacturers charge money for licensing and specifically choose which titles can be licensed or not is specifically to prevent poor games from entering the market.

So far as I know console licensing is purely a money making scheme and has little or nothing to do with with preventing bad titles on consoles.

[JoeMaru]

Maybe I haven't been playing enough mainstream stuff or console games, but just about every title I've bought from mainstream high end studios in the last couple of years has sucked big time with few exceptions.

Agreed. and that is the commundrum.. value by the consumer is often measured by the production quality and not the gameplay quality.. this needs to change.. trouble is, it is hard to 'see' good gameplay.

Spend a few months with my band and tell me that you spend more time and effort writing a design document than we spend writing and arranging an album's worth of songs.

I don't have to spend any time with your band to tell you that I DO NOT spend more time and effort writing a design doc than you do writing and arranging an albums worth of songs.

If you took the ThinkTanks design doc and implemented a game based on it, you would not have even close to the same product. If I took your sheet music, I would at least have a semblance of your product.

While I don't know that many film-makers.. I used to know a bunch of musicians, one who not only had a band but played as a studio musician for 'pro' studios, and my experience, albeit limited, has suggessted to me that the differences in production are indeed quite different.

Although there are similarities in the production of all forms of entertaniment, I have found the differences in each to be quite pronounced and specific to each form. I know there are similarties... but I know the differences are very important.

[Hiro_Antagonist]

So far as I know console licensing is purely a money making scheme and has little or nothing to do with with preventing bad titles on consoles.

Then with all due respect, I strongly recommend you research the practice. It goes to pay for all sorts of things.

-*extensive* testing
-standards enforcement (manual, packaging, trademark references, etc.)
-covering the substantial losses that manufacturers make on hardware sales (xbox is just now finally breaking even, near the end of its lifecycle, due to these 'unreasonable fees')
-Hopefully turning an eventual profit. They are, after all, business, and their job is pure and simply to make money for their investors/shareholders. These fees are the consoles' only source of income as I understand it.

There's other stuff I don't have listed here. But you get the idea.

And surely you'd admit that PC releases are far buggier, on average, than console releases? This is because there's nobody enforcing quality, except for the market itself.

Most things in the business world are designed the way they are for sustainability, and exist for perfectly good reason, even if they don't happen to be convenient or obvious for any one given person somewhere down the line. In this case, it sucks for us indies to not be able to hit consoles, but that very thing keeps consoles feasible.

-Hiro_Antagonist

[queasy]

I'm a bit late to the thread, but I wanted to toss a couple cents at a few of the comments already made.

I really feel that the simlarities between indie games and indie music, or indie anything for that matter, is rooted in motivation. Too many times I've talked to or read about other independent developers who say "jon, your game needs to have a mouse interface!" I ask, "why?" The answer? "Because most people in the market only know how to use the mouse"

Why do these people even care about what's going on in the market? Indie is independence from mainstream thinking. It is to design games without regard to a market, but with regard to the actual art form. This is what makes indie music/film exciting -- it breaks down conventions and offers something new.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a lot of indie developers who are actually just catering to a new mainstream. That is, a different market with a different set of criteria. Of course market conditions become a factor when it is your sole source of income, but my point is, it's really no different than how AAA games are made.

There was also talk about production values and how indies can never get the same production values as AAA titles. But the thing is, you must really look at production in context. Look at N. For the most part it's a monochromatic colours, with a stick figure ninja. It's production at it's all time low, but it works within the context of the game..

There are other games that have huge audience despite low-budget productions. Soldat, Parsec47, Warning Forever, etc. They all work. They are all indie. And they all have an audience/following.

My point is, as indies, we really have to get out of this rut of attaching good production to mean high-quality 3d graphics. You can obtain visually pleasing graphics in a different way by making it work within the context of the game. This is the essence of creativity!

It is because of things like this that I often view indie-competition-complaints about budget to be frivolous. Again, it's not about budget. It has nothing to do with budget but with motivation for independence from mainstream thinking (and there are many mainstreams). That is the key to being indie.

-j

[Andy]

Too many times I've talked to or read about other independent developers who say "jon, your game needs to have a mouse interface!" I ask, "why?" The answer? "Because most people in the market only know how to use the mouse"

Why do these people even care about what's going on in the market? Indie is independence from mainstream thinking. It is to design games without regard to a market, but with regard to the actual art form. This is what makes indie music/film exciting -- it breaks down conventions and offers something new.


This sounds pretty brave queasy. And I respect your opinion. Princec always talks in the same manner everywhere. The question only stays why he always wonders after that why his games has 0 sales? - http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?t=1991

This is obviously the price for his extravaganza and his independence from everybody. So why wonder after that?

If you are trying to go by another way - go for it. But not try to get both at the same time and with the half of efforts.

I suppose so...

[Chris Evans]

I dont know about this indie games suck relative to retail titles. Maybe I haven't been playing enough mainstream stuff or console games, but just about every title I've bought from mainstream high end studios in the last couple of years has sucked big time with few exceptions. In most cases what you had was a bloated boring game with nice "bought" production values. Is that what we mean by good? Same is true of most indie titles of course. Most of them are pretty bad, but im not sure the ratio of bad games to good ones is much different in retail than it is in independently produced titles. Seems the gems are far and few between in both spheres.

Thank you. That's basically what I was trying to say earlier, but you summed it up nicely in a single paragraph. :)

[queasy]

Andy, I totally understand and semi-agree to what you're talking about.

I'm quite new to the board so I don't really know much about princec's attemps at marketing his game. But to him I would say that right now it's nearly impossible to garner any financial compensation for indie (as I've described it) work.

As stated before by others, there is no venue, and so as an indie (and I mean indie the way I've described it), perhaps one needs to sacrfice a little to create/help establish that venue.

I'm not sure what his motivations are, but mine has always been:
1. make a great game
2. for a community
and only then, 3. make some cash

When the community/venue is established however, then it may be possible to obtain financial backing for your efforts. But working as an indie the way I've described, it should be obvoius that one should seriously look elsewhere for funding (ie. part-time job ;))

-j

[BlueWaldo]

I think indie music/flim compares better with open source software. And they certianly have a cult following.

[Nauris]

Any alternative culture requires a soil to grow on first. Indies now just dont provide enough of varied material for various tastes. Lets say I like strategy games and have conscieously decided to rave about indies for thought experiment`s sake - what exactly can indie scene offer me to keep me occupied all year long?

Current indie flavour of the month is not-too-brainy puzzles for *mainstream market* - dumbing down any statistics, that consists of housewives. You dont get dedicated indie culture from such an audience. Most of them dont watch indie films either.

So its no good wondering why oh why there`s not a lucrative, geeky and slightly glamorous indie subculture, it has no soil to root in yet.
Of course, there are original, interesting, polished games out there. However, there has to be a certain critical mass of such titles achieved before any culture can evolve.
Until then all you get is tiny bunch of highly interested followers for specific titles.

[paulm]

The connection between indie music, film and games is clearly not in the actions - banging out a tune is not writing a script is not coding a game - but that technology has become cheap and abundant enough to allow people on shoestring budgets and with a moderate amount of time to create their idea of what music, film or games should be.

Considering this context, I would say, compared to music and film, the technology in games has a fair way to go before people will be able to create games as easily. The free or cheap technology with 3D engines is comparable to the more expensive options; I think that the next big leap in technology will need to taken in content creation before the idea of indie games takes off.

The argument has been put forward that there are not enough artists around, and this is also true. I think we may have to find ways we can become involved in the education of game developers early on, as there still seems to be quite a lack of appreciation between game coder and game artist. Many game coders don't respect the art; many game artists don't respect the technology.

There is also something to be said for the social aspect of games. Before reading this thread, the social aspect had not even been something I'd thought about, at least not in a physical sense. I'd always thought of the 'community' as Internet-based, but it never occurred to me that perhaps one of the strongest ways to get people involved is at a local level, where you can engage people face-to-face and make so much more impact.

I think the final thing is time. Culture and identity take time to develop, and it's going to be slow goings for a while. I think you'll find there is a new generation of wide-eyed game developer being educated, wanting to advance the art as much as making a game, and we have a chance to make an impression on them. I think that it will be that generation that will help form and spread the culture, so I'm digging in my claws as soon as I can find some fresh meat that will listen to an old hermit (of 24) rave on about the poor state of gaming.

This thread has been quite enlightening.

Cheers,
Paul.

[cliffski]

Sometimes they helpfully declare bedroom coding to be dead or say something along the lines of "but those one-person games don’t count really do they?" (thanks Martin (http://www.zoonami.com/briefing/2004-09-02.php)). I've started collecting these anti-indie quotes, hopefully they'll be amusing rather than confirming to me in later life.
You think that's bad? My day-job boss is Peter Molyneux. I've lost track of the number of times he's told me you can't make a game for less than 5 million dollars these days... *sigh*
I have to say that althugh some indie games (Gish, Star Monkey, Mutant Storm, Ricochet, Space Station Manager) are good enough to compete with retail titles, the vast majority are not. The best thing about the PC as a business platform for games (zero barrier to entry) is also its worst thing, Especially now we have the internet as a means of distribution.
Most indie gamers start selling their game too early, long before its good enough to get real sales. I'd wager 90% of the games people here make sell less than 1 copy a month.
What I think might be a good thought experiment is to tell yourself your next game will have a thousand dollar initial marketing budget (press release, banner ads etc). If you look at your game and feel nervous about doing that, I suspect your game just isn't good enough to sell yet.
People just get bored with working on project X and so they declare it finished and try selling it. They might kid themselves that its finished and of sellabel quality, but they are just in a rush to see the first royalty check.

[impossible]

I would argue that there is an indie game culture, if not multiple cultures. Sure, it's not as cool or glamorous as indie film or indie music, but you can say the same thing for the mainstream game industry vs. mainstream film.

I would consider the indiegamer forums part of indie gaming culture. Garage Games, Flipcode, Gamedev, Game Tunnel, Insert Credit, Ludumdare, Newgrounds, Retro Remakes, RPG DX and countless other sites dedicated to making and playing games that are not produced by big publishers or developers. There are mods, IF, MUDs, amateur adventure games, homebrew console games, Japanese doujin games, etc. There are small communities dedicated to building niche games, like lemmasoft, for example. If you consider indie games to be "casual shareware games that 40 year old moms play", sure there's not much of a culture there, but if you consider all of the games developed outside of the mainstream game industry and the people that play them I'd say there is actually a pretty large culture around independent gaming.

Indie films, the ones that people pay attention to at least, usually have pretty high budgets compared to indie games. This is often on top of having actors and other people involved taking large pay cuts, or even working for free, because they like the project. The costs are much larger than what most indie game developers are willing to invest, money or time wise. Films (currently) cost more to produce than games, but I'm guessing most indie games are part time side projects with very little, if any, investment involved besides free time. When developers do invest a lot of money in indie projects (Savage, Alien Hominid) you often get people crying "they're not indie!!!" I'm not saying indie games should have huge budgets, or have to to be relevant, but you don't have many examples of guys that put their entire life savings (and then some) up to make their dream game. Afaik, this is pretty common among indie film.

The problem isn't that "indie games suck", but more of a problem of the limited view of what indie is within this community. I don't think family friendly casual games designed primarily to be financially successful will get you a culture similar to indie film or music, not that there is anything wrong with that. There is no "indie culture" around anything that is primarily targetted to families and soccer moms (correct me if I'm wrong, I'd love to hear about it.)

[svero]

-*extensive* testing
-standards enforcement (manual, packaging, trademark references, etc.)
-covering the substantial losses that manufacturers make on hardware sales (xbox is just now finally breaking even, near the end of its lifecycle, due to these 'unreasonable fees')
-Hopefully turning an eventual profit. They are, after all, business, and their job is pure and simply to make money for their investors/shareholders. These fees are the consoles' only source of income as I understand it.

There's other stuff I don't have listed here. But you get the idea.


Yeah I get the idea just fine and it's just as I said it was. Licensing is about making money and NOT about ensuring quality games. I think you're right about the standards and testing stuff. If that's what's meant by a quality game then ok I agree. But a game that runs a particular way, and that has no bugs is not necessarily a "good" game and so it's not what I was talking about. I was talking about good games as in fun games, games with value beyond fancy graphics. The 3rd point about covering losses on hardware is the key. They sell the boxes cheap because they know they'll make their money on the game licensing. That's the whole business model. That's what they do to make money. I don't begrudge it to them. As you say it's a business. But to say that licensing is in place to ensure quality games is rather misleading imho. I maintain that licensing is in place primarily as a way to make money. There may be some level of standards enforcement, but if I had enough money at the end of the day I could get a deal with nintendo to release pretty crappy games for their system.

[Evak]

The cost of commercial games, and the terrible forced sweatshop environment that a lot of developers have to work in, may actually be helping talented indies. More and more experienced professionals are getting tired of terrible working conditions and the negative effect it has on ther health and families, those that love games enough and refuse to quit will quite likely end up here with us.

Also, The last commercial game I worked on in 2003, I got to sit in many meetings with publishers and hear their sob stories. How bad the industry was for publishers, publishers selling their top franchises in order to fund next years games etc. And these were big publishers. A couple that we talked out of about a dozen to that have since gone were Interplay, and Midway (West) and 3DO. And there are many not far behind. They are feeling the pinch as much as we are, and somewhere down the line things will have to change.

With the price of next gen development, if it follows current trends, the risks of big budget games will surely start to push weaker pubishers out of the market, or force them to attract gamers through other means. Perhaps Indies won't get the opportunitie to benefit with big game contracts, but I do feel that the technology becoming avaliable to us, and the slow trickle of talented and experienced developers with the skills to make decent games happen is comming, and we may be in for a chance.

Just look at the games at the IGF of 2-3 years ago, and compare them to todays. were doing a lot better, tools like Blitz, torque etc are maturing, next gen versions are in beta, middleware has flourished, art tools have become cheaper, more and more effort is going into crossplatform allowing competition on other often game starved platforms whish commercial publishers tend to feel aren't lucrative enough, but we with our tight budgets and less extravagent business can actually do quite well.

I think those that have the talent can succeed, and there are more people than ever willing to take the risks with the right teams.

I'm pretty hopeful that Independents will get their chance to really shine, and do it making the games they want to make, rather than being held back by the lack of resources and time avaliable to make the more ambitious titles I at least dream of.

Games I have worked on so far, have basicaly been quick dirty crunch games, mostly done for fun and hope of scratching up an income, but in making these games I've gotten to mingle with some really talented people, and feel there are plenty of opportunities to make the kinds of games I want to make, with these people. A year ago I was kind of stuck wondering where to go, and thinking perhaps I should quit game dev altogether.

Today, I just feel that success is just around the corner.

Kind of wandered off a bit, But I do think that the indie scene is definately gaining momentum, and looking back over the last 4 years its accelerating.

[Jay_Kyburz]

I think this is a great thread.

I just wanted to chime in and agree with everybody that said there is a bit indie game scene when you look around.

There are also a few big success stories when you think about it. Counter Strike comes to mind.

[Air]

Perhaps Indies won't get the opportunitie to benefit with big game contracts, but I do feel that the technology becoming avaliable to us, and the slow trickle of talented and experienced developers with the skills to make decent games happen is comming, and we may be in for a chance.
That's also a double-edged sword however... as games become eaiser to produce competition will likely increase since people who might have otherwise lacked the skill or resources needed to get into the market will be afforded new luxuries. And actually that trend's already been in action for the past several years, giving rise now to the game portals-- some so flooded with games from avid upstart developers that they can post new ones constantly.

That's what happens when the product in question is something most people simply enjoy doing. Most game developers are developing games first and seeking income second, and as long as that remains part of the culture, we're always going to have a glut of games.

Anyways, one idea that occured to me might be an "Organic Indie" campaign-- something similar to marketing used to promote organic foods and non-sweatshop products. Push the fact that buying indie games helps support better working conditions and more innovative/creative environments. Indie games are wholesome, happy games! Get people to feel good not just for what they're buying, but for who the money's going to. While it'll never be quite as lucrative as the mainstream marketing, it can certainly be a viable source of income.

A campaign like that only really works with mature audiences though, and I'm not entirely sure what percentage of regulars on the major portals are mature audiences. I'm pretty sure the portals actually attract a larger percentage of older gamers than consoles do (people who haven't the time to sit down and dedicate hours to gaming, for example), but I've never seen a stat to back that up. That's just based on my own experience of people and communities I know.

- Air

[serg3d]

I think there is a culture in fact, it's just centered around specific games, not inie games as a whole.
There are communities around Dominions, GalCiv, PuzzlePirates and may be couple of others.

[BongPig]

Back to the comments made further back.

Personally, ALL the games ive enjoyed most over the last year were not indie games. I would like to say the situation is the same for mainstream and indie, but for the kind of gamer I am, its not true.
Project Gotham, Colin Mcrae, Riddick, Pikmin, Metroid Prime, Halo2. All released over the last year, and all devistatingly good games.
All indie games ive played in the same period dont even come close. Even the better ones. Its not just graphics, its outright gameplay. The playing field is even between mainstream and indie titles when we're talking about gameplay, am i right? Well, indie games still suck! Even at 30% of the price.

[papillon]

outright gameplay... the outright gameplay I want is NOT A FPS THANK YOU.

The only thing on that list I will even agree is cool is Pikmin. And while I think it's great and will watch others play it, I can't play it either because, well, 3d.

I wish more downloadable games people would release things that are at the game and quality level of SNES roms, which is about the level of gaming where I am perfectly happy. :)

[Ricardo C]

I've actually enjoyed MORE indie games these past few months than mainstream retail titles. Perhaps because my PC is falling by the wayside and I can't enjoy all the shader eye-candy in the newer titles, I've paid more attention to other alternatives.

Wanna know the BEST game I've played in the past six months? "5 Days a Stranger". A game made by one man, with pixel art reminiscent of LucasArts' adventure games, circa 1990, and public domain midis for a soundtrack. It was farkin' fantastic. I'm thinking of kicking a full $20 to his paypal account because the game gave me as much enjoyment as I expect from a professional game.

[BongPig]

papillon, you hate 3D no matter what, so youre never going to change, the same way i wont!! :)

Ricardo, you need to get an Xbox & Gamecube my friend!

[princec]

I too have enjoyed more indie games in the last 12 months than retail, but that's mainly because I don't buy many retail games anyway as I'm too lazy to get off my arse and go to the shops. Hurrah for Steam's Webstartalike downloady thingy as I've done bugger all work on games for the last 2 weeks since I bought HL2.

Cas :)

[Lantern Paul]

I’ve read this thread with great interest (Martoon pointed me to it!), and it really got my noodle working… sure there are quality issues and sure there are marketing issues, but I think we also have to look at the medium…

Indie games, by and large, exist in an anti-social, technology filled environment… most are single player downloadable game experiences…

…compare that to the indie music scene that’s been talked about…that’s really an extrovert’s environment…it’s all about seeing the bands, sharing the music with friends and capturing the “scene” that comes with the music (often, the music on the CD will simply serve as the trigger of a memory for a fan—the time they saw them in that little club in Chicago, and so on).

… films are more introverted… story telling to an individual, but often, the indie film culture is social…talking about the film, recommending the films, going to see the film at an obscure theater and such… and then of course, we’ve got the festivals…and by their nature, these are social events…

…and entry into these cliques is pretty straightforward… we all know how to go see a band… we all know how to buy a CD… we also understand how to get online and buy an off-market DVD of some obscure German zombie-gore movie… it’s part of our modern cultural knowledge…

…BUT, as easy as we think it is, most folks don’t know where to get a good indie game…they don’t know the folks to talk to, since the socializing exists in forums like this, off the general enthusiast’s beaten path… and a lot of folks don’t know how or are leery to download a demo from a company they’ve never heard of…

…and if they do get the game and play it and it’s the coolest thing in the world, the circle of folks they can talk to about it in the flesh-and-blood world is very small indeed… talking about an indie film around the water cooler is fine… but about a new, innovative, paradigm-shifting shooter? Sadly, most co-workers will give the silent “geek” symbol and slowly sidle back to their cubicles…

…it’s really interesting, since we participate in a medium that’s both everywhere (in terms of console games and the media) while simultaneously being a self-excluding club…

…methinks it’s an issue of time… as computers and consoles migrate into the central “media alter” of our family lives, then more and more will innovative independent games become fair game and Monday-morning water cooler conversations…

Just my few cents on the issue…

-Paul
www.lanterngames.com

[Evak]

There are far more better commercial games its true. Far more better games than there are Indie titles. I too have a ageing PC and have had to play Xbox games instead. Some of the best titles of the past year have been brilliant, and there are some really exciting ones coming out soon.

Riddick was easily the best FPS of the year, HL2 great, Fable was brilliant and only disappointing because of the 3 years of hype that built it to heights it couldn't possibly expect to achieve. Galleon had the same problem but was a really enjoyable game. Broken sword 3, Kotor 1 & 2, splinter cell series, several racing games.

Recently I have seen more interesting PC games that I'd like to play but my computer is unacceptabe being 4 years old, and as a artist I can't enjoy a game without getting blown away by the graphics, allthough gameplay is just as important.

All those games mention blow anything away the indie scene has come up with ever.... in my opinion. But its definately getting better. I wouldn't have played any games except live for speed until this past year, as indie games for the most part sucked.

I did enjoy the first bejeweled but I'd never buy a puzzle game as I get bored of simple repetitive gameplay and am not a casual gamer at all. I was kind of interested in Darklore Horizons till I played it and the game seemed clunky and dull, mostly due to limitations of the engine.

Thinktanks looked pretty, only played the demo, but was too simplistic to keep me interested long, and I'm not really into Multiplayer games without Xbox live like voice over net and player matching (bit spoilt that way).

I liked hamster ball, jets n rockets I think it was called, starscape, and a few others that I have forgotten allready, but none of them seem able to keep me interested enough to last the time required to make them worth the price. I'm pretty picky about what games I am willing to purchase anyway, since my budget is very limited, and that usually leaves me with game demo's and the odd comercial game here and there. Commercial games allways win out, just its hard to make a choice as there are far more quality titles to choose from.

the ones I mentioned were the ones I bought, riddick I've played through 3 times the longest being 14 hours, Kotor 1 took 43 hours, PLayed Kotor 2 for about 20 so far, my wife and I both enjoyed broken sword 3. Galeon was about 20 hours. Fable 15.

Most indie games last 5-10 minutes with the exception of a couple of bejeweled type games.

[impossible]

I wish more downloadable games people would release things that are at the game and quality level of SNES roms, which is about the level of gaming where I am perfectly happy. :)
Like http://agtp.romhack.net/doukutsu.html ? Maybe? Or many other Japanese Doujin games (http://www.int13.net/~roni/), and many other various freeware things out there (Beats of Rage, Alex Alligator, etc.) These things exist, people just don't know where to look :).

[papillon]

Oh, don't worry, I play interesting new freeware games all the time. That's why it's so annoying that this sort of thing doesn't seem to be common in our "indie culture". :) And also why it's so annoying that download.com started requiring payment for listing. It drove the nifty free stuff away and replaced it with streams of boring same-old-same-old...

There IS an indie culture. Casual-game-shareware-devs just aren't part of it.

[DavidRM]

There IS an indie culture. Casual-game-shareware-devs just aren't part of it.

papillon is my new hero. Or heroine, if that's legal... :)

-David