Irrational games goes indie

[Dan MacDonald]

http://pc.ign.com/articles/586/586914p1.html?fromint=1

It seems irrational games has gone indie. The sell their sequel to freedom force through their website and pre-orders are available now. They sold 400k copies of the last one but I guess that's not enough for a publisher. So Irrational self funded the development of the sequel and got permission from Vevindi to sell it online. Pretty stinking cool if you ask me, I ordered a copy just to support them :)

[Reactor]

Thanks Dan... that's good news to know!

[Triple_Fox]

This is quite something - if they get a lot of sales in the long-term it might be a turning point for the industry :) Though Steam was the first to get mainstream attention, this kind of strategy is something a lot of developers could actually put into practice.

I bought the original Freedom Force, and I have no doubt the second will be just as great. I guess that means it's time to order a copy...

Edit: It was giving me a vague message that some of my payment information was invalid. I checked and retried three times and nothing. I've never had a problem like this before, but then, their web site looks kind of trashy in a lot of ways so now I'm suspecting that they've screwed it up :(

[gpetersz]

Well, what does it mean exactly? Bigger companies go indie?
Is it good, or bad?

[RedKnight]

good or bad?

Is like a fat bastard jump into a small children swimming pool pushing all the other kids away.
what if EA gone indie?


We had created a game that, besides winning an Editor's Choice from this lovely website, went on to sell over 400,000 units.

it is just numbers to me. :p anyway.

btw
"FREEDOM" force vs 3 rd reich
every time when I heard the word "FREEDOM"
all i go mad. :mad:

[BongPig]

good or bad?

Is like a fat bastard jump into a small children swimming pool pushing all the other kids away.
what if EA gone indie?


Good riddence. Loads of those kids piss in the pool and make it smell.

[Air]

It was my understanding that Irrational was a pretty small Indie-style company from the start. Freedom Force was made by a small team and built using the same affordable 3D engine that was used for Duke Nuken Manhatten Project (forget the name), along with a handful of other more affordable alternatives for tools and libaries that many other larger companies would have overlooked. Certainly Freedom Force is one of the more 'creative' games to have come out in recent years, if creative freedom really is something you can use to measure an indie by.

But that said, thanks to the power of the Portals selling games online is becoming a much more viable source of income. That means larger dev teams are going to be attracted to it. Will that change the way downloadable games are made and played? A little, but not too much probably. A game like Freedom Force probably doesn't appeal much to the current majority of Portal game buyers-- its too involved. There will always be a strong market for simple "quick-click" games that jump right into the action and have very stright-forward top-level-only interfaces; and these types of games small indies should always be able to stay competitive with the big boys on.

... then again, catering to that audience doesn't seem so much like creative freedom.

[Ricardo C]

Is like a fat bastard jump into a small children swimming pool pushing all the other kids away.

Depends on if your own products directly compete with Irrational's.

what if EA gone indie?

They can't be indie, since they are a publically traded company.

I thought that the idea behind the indie movement was to not be beholden to corporate interests, to retain our creative and business freedom, and to make sure the lion's share of the profits ends up in the developer's pocket, and not in the middleman's. Assuming those beliefs are true, then the idea of one of the "big leaguers" choosing to go indie can only be good for the rest of us. It adds credibility and momentum to our side of the industry, and shows publishers that the indie alternative is not just for developers of small/casual games. I wish the folks at Irrational all the luck in the world.

[gpetersz]

I could agree if there were no other consequences like "the big fish eats small fish".

What if a big league player go indie (after accumulated some money) and sells its games around 5.99 for a year or two. Won't it lead to the
death of some of us with less reserves?

It might improve the crediblity but ruin the balance. 400,000 pieces is hard to compete.

[svero]

I don't know all the details or any of the people involved, so maybe I've got it wrong, but just from this thread...

To me this doesn't sound so hot. I think this reinforces the negative idea that if you can't make it in the retail biz, and can't get a "real" deal, then you "go indie". Publishers not interested? Go indie! It's very negative, and not at all in line with what I do or why.

I've held very comfortable high paying jobs with big software companies and it's just not for me. I work for myself because it's the ONLY way I'll ever get to decide who benefits from my successs (or suffers from my failure as the case may be) I don't do what I do because there were no other options.

[Bluecat]

I could agree if there were no other consequences like "the big fish eats small fish".

What if a big league player go indie (after accumulated some money) and sells its games around 5.99 for a year or two. Won't it lead to the
death of some of us with less reserves?

It might improve the crediblity but ruin the balance. 400,000 pieces is hard to compete.

The big company is probably less likely to be able to sell a game for a loss than the small company. Irrational, now has a lot of overhead, spends a lot on making its games, and requires a substantial income. Maybe, if they were developing for the big publishers at the same time they could afford to lose money on an indie title, but then why develop the game in the first place just to make a net loss?

Even if they do start selling 400K copies for 5.99, it won't make any difference. It's still just one game out of the hundreds of indie releases. It's one indie game that does really well. Just think, we wouldn't be worried if one of the members of this forum sold 400K copies of their game. We'd be congratulating them. Irrational will take a year or two to release each game, and if they sell 400000 each time, it ain't gonna dilute the market that much.

I think it's more likely that a well funded indie like Irrational would morph into a portal.

[ManuelFLara]

What if a big league player go indie (after accumulated some money) and sells its games around 5.99 for a year or two. Won't it lead to the
death of some of us with less reserves?

I don't really think so, for two reasons.
First, almost no indie targets the hardcore audience as Irrational does, and it's what a 'big league player' would do if it went indie. If it was dedicated exclusively to making casual games... we'll have another gamehouse/popcap/reflexive, that's all.
Second, if they sell truly great games at low prices (not makes much sense to me, anyway) maybe everyone would buy a copy. And what? People will buy more games, and they can't provide an *infinite* number of games. I think almost every casual gamer has ricochet, zuma or some of these big hits, but this fact doesn't stop them from purchasing more games.

It might improve the crediblity but ruin the balance. 400,000 pieces is hard to compete.
400,000 in the mainstream is not that much (it all depends on how much the game development cost), but online distribution is a whole different thing, and 400,000 copies are big words. Time will tell how they do, althought I think most of their customers will be the same ones than now, only they will buy the games on-line. Maybe this accostumes hardcore players to buy downloadable games and is a good thing for smaller indies.

[alfie]

I see that the "Pre Order" charge is $5, but where does it say that they will be selling at $5.99?

[Coyote]

To me this doesn't sound so hot. I think this reinforces the negative idea that if you can't make it in the retail biz, and can't get a "real" deal, then you "go indie". Publishers not interested? Go indie! It's very negative, and not at all in line with what I do or why.

I see it the opposite. This is a company that CAN and HAS made it in the "retail biz." FF1 sold 400,000 units. This is about as momentous as Half Life 2 being sold directly to customers from Valve via Steam.

This helps further legitimize the purchasing of games directly over the Internet. It will help REDUCE the perception that downloadable games are just crap games that couldn't possibly make it to a store shelf. I think it's another nail in the coffin of retail shops (not that I think retailers will ever go away completely - but I think the time is coming where they will end up being secondary sources of games for consumers (yes, even for consoles).

EA has already made one foray into the "indie games" arena... based on the success of Ultima Online they spent a lot of money on a portal at one point. This was like 5 years ago... the whole program tanked.

The big boys are coming to the online distribution arena. It's gonna happen. Half-Life 2 and Freedom Force 2 are only the beginning. Acknowledge, move on. The thing is, while they and their portals can definitely crowd the swimming pool --- it's an infinitely large swimming pool. Unlike retail, they can't command all the distribution channels. The good news is that this levels the playing field for EVERYONE. Your game is gonna be right there in the same virtual space as EA Football 2010 or whatever.

When I go to Blockbuster or Hollywood Video (yes, I haven't gotten aboard the NetFlicks bandwagon yet... we don't rent enough videos), there's a whole bunch of smaller, off-beat, lower-budget videos being rented along with the big megabudget blockbusters. You have some movies that did poorly in the box-office but walk on water as rentals. You have movies from 1955 that still get rented, and even get newly released as DVDs because there are enough sales and rentals to justify it. No, Bubba Ho-Tep won't enjoy the same quantity of sales / rentals as Spider-Man II (even though Bruce Campbell was in both). But they CAN both co-exist, and find their audience.

[Coyote]

400,000 in the mainstream is not that much (it all depends on how much the game development cost), but online distribution is a whole different thing, and 400,000 copies are big words.

400,000 for a PC retail game is still pretty frickin' huge, last I heard. That's why so many publishers abandoned PC game development for consoles --- the numbers for consoles are much higher. 200,000 sales for a PC game is still (last I heard) pretty respectable.

Then there was the article in Computer Gaming World a few months back about how publishers are going BACK to PC game development because the sales numbers on consoles were going down. After four years, the supply of games for a console becomes pretty saturated and it begins to resemble... SURPRISE!... the PC game market. Imagine that! It sounds like the end of this year will usher in a new generation of consoles (at least the X-Box 2), and so the cycle will begin anew, much to the publishers' relief.

[svero]

Anyone who's actually used Steam must know it for the complete utter horrible unusable disaster it is. At least that's the impression it left me with. If that's what passes for the big-guys moving into the downloadable arena... well I don't think there's any danger of the market being shifted by them anytime soon. If it weren't for the fact that I loved half life to death and really really desperately wanted to play the sequel there's no way I would have put up with Steam. It was a major obstacle to my enjoying the game.

[tentons]

I have to agree that Irrational is no threat and is quite the opposite. It can only help the image of indie games, and that helps us all by bringing new people to the medium who weren't interested before. Ergo, a bigger market.

[luggage]

but at the cost of that 'bigger market' are more games, more advertising, less customers visiting the places where your games are. What if EA let loose one of their teams on writing the ultimate breakout game? And then followed it up with tonnes of marketing? Sure, you'll still get some people who will buy every version they can find but all of a sudden you've got a lot less room in the marketplace.

[JoeMaru]

If you beleive the marketplace is finite.. and that the 'pie' that we all share has stopped growing, better to pack it in now and move on.

My feeling is that we have not even begun to tap the potential. We need to grow the customer base.

Downloadable games suffer from a credibility problem. Many still view them as games that are not worthy of being a product. When people from the big shops start looing at ESD as a viable business decision, it is a good thing for everyone involved in it as it helps with the credibility problem.

If you fear that you will get squeezed out by EA, then it is better to give up now. We formed our company because we knew that we could make small fun games way better and way cheaprer than a big company. So we set out to do just that, and no surprise, we delivered our game for a 3rd of what it would have cost if we had done it in house at the big publsihers.

We ended up appealing to a fan base that is undersevered by the big players. and I don't see the big players wanting to move into this space. If they do decide to move in and they can do it better than we can.. well, such is life.

In the games industry, things change.. they have been changing all along, and they continue to change now. You can either choose to change with it, or jump up and down and scream about it and get left behind.

[Bluecat]

Anyone who's actually used Steam must know it for the complete utter horrible unusable disaster it is. At least that's the impression it left me with.

I know quite a few people have had problems with Steam, but I wasn't one of them. It was simple to download and install, easy to use, and I was up and shooting Combine the next morning. I started the HL2 download late on a Saturday evening, and it was supposed to take two to four hours. Considering the amount of content in HL2, I was surprised it didn't take much longer. I found Steam a joy to use.

Yes they do have a bunch of issues to work out. But I can honestly see these sorts of online distribution methods becoming far more popular. I reckon, when the technology matures a bit more, these sorts of content distribution methods will cause a boom in the industry. The publishers won't like it though.

[luggage]

I'm not worried about the immediate picture, I'm more worried about long term. I'm here for the long haul so adapting will have to be done, doesn't mean I'm going to be happy about it.

Even if the big publishers don't move into the same game market there'll still be an awful lot of advertising aimed at game players. It's hard enough getting eyeballs onto your website now.

[Sparks]

I like the fact that the creators of SS2 go Indie.
Actually, it motivates me.
The want what we all want: create the games we WANT and make a decent living. No one really wants corporate suits throw in "popular" game ideas.
No one really wants that damocles sword of the "if it ain't hitting that milestone, Your little studio gets shut down".
Back to garages, I say.Polish them games and earn the rewards.
Get in touch with the community, listen to their ideas, cooperate.
Games for gamers by gamers.
Irrational isnt one of the BIG players, they had their games and were able to save money to go Indie.
Good for them, I am glad they can do that, and it shows that fun is the most important factor in games, not the statistics the suits dig up.
I wish them a lot of success with Freedom Force.

[Bluecat]

but at the cost of that 'bigger market' are more games, more advertising, less customers visiting the places where your games are. What if EA let loose one of their teams on writing the ultimate breakout game? And then followed it up with tonnes of marketing? Sure, you'll still get some people who will buy every version they can find but all of a sudden you've got a lot less room in the marketplace.

But the problem is that the 'EA Ultimate Breakout 2008' would take three years to write, cost five million dollars, and would retail for $49.95. It would last on store shelves for about three months, and the online web page would never be updated. They would lose a packet on it and never attempt it again. If they did happen to make some decent cash, the next year they'd release 'EA Ultimate Breakout 2009' which would just be a graphical update.

Indie game developers have one huge advantage over the big publishers, and even over the big portals. Agility. The bigger the company becomes, the more inertia it gains. The harder it is for it to try anything different because it can't afford to take risks. It doesn't take that many flops, or consecutive annual losses for a board or ceo to be sacked.

I read an article on CNN the other day about Screenwriters. It seems that the best most original screenwriters, while they are in demand for indie or fringe films, are not overly in demand for general Hollywood films. (The article had a big section on the guy who wrote the screenplay for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.) The way to get a start in writing screenplays for Hollywood is to write an excellent, original screenplay. This screenplay will never be made into a movie, it is simply to show that you can do it. Once you get a job, you have to write according to a formula, the definition of which is narrowing all the time. That's why most of the interesting movies coming out of Hollywood are the indie, or indie influenced films. The rest are uninteresting and predictable for the most part.

You can see this happening with the game industry. EA and the other big publishers are only really interested in certain types of games. Yes, there are some good ones released from time to time (Katamari Damacy) but overall they are sticking with tried and true formulas. If EA decided to branch out into casual games, they would be no more threating to indie developers than are the big portals.

[Bluecat]

Even if the big publishers don't move into the same game market there'll still be an awful lot of advertising aimed at game players. It's hard enough getting eyeballs onto your website now.

This will probably be the biggest issue. The good news is that unlike the print media, the big publishers don't own the internet. The internet really is a level playing field, and it rewards innovative strategic thinking.

[baegsi]

What if EA let loose one of their teams on writing the ultimate breakout game? And then followed it up with tonnes of marketing? If this would be profitable for them, they'd done it long time ago. You can be sure they look very carefully at every opportunity. But I don't think a breakout clone would be worth tons of marketing. And if it would be worth it, it would also bring plenty of new users to the online market and there would be again new niches for indies to exploit. It's nothing new, it's just the ongoing change of markets, it will always be like this. What you have to do though is to adapt, so there might be the case that it is not worthwhile anymore to make breakout clones or something similar. Just my .02 of course.

[luggage]

Some interesting replies and certainly something to think about.

But the problem is that the 'EA Ultimate Breakout 2008' would take three years to write, cost five million dollars, and would retail for $49.95. It would last on store shelves for about three months, and the online web page would never be updated. They would lose a packet on it and never attempt it again. If they did happen to make some decent cash, the next year they'd release 'EA Ultimate Breakout 2009' which would just be a graphical update.Don't let your opinion of EA cloud your view. The same point applies to a bunch of other publishers, EA was just as example. You might think what they do isn't very good but it sure makes them a lot of money and it's working for them.

bigger the company becomes, the more inertia it gains. The harder it is for it to try anything different because it can't afford to take risks. It doesn't take that many flops, or consecutive annual losses for a board or ceo to be sacked.That's true when you're talking about games that take 2 years and have budgets to match but when games only take 3 months they can afford a lot of flops.

EA and the other big publishers are only really interested in certain types of games.This isn't true, EA and other big publishers are only interested in making money. It just happens in the retail market staying safe works. If they thought they could make enough money to make it worthwhile then I'm sure they'd write whatever it would take.

The internet really is a level playing field, and it rewards innovative strategic thinking.I hope so, I really do, because if some of the larger publishers started to let their money do the talking it's going to be a bumpy ride. I know I can't afford to advertise all over the web.

If this would be profitable for them, they'd done it long time ago.This is quite naive when you think about it. Big corporations aren't usually the first into a market, they'll wait till it is profitable then move in. Not long ago you could have said "Microsoft won't move into the console market, they'd have done it long time ago if it was profitable"

Aren't EA dipping their toe into the water with Pogo?

[Coyote]

Have you heard the executives and heads of product development and marketing guys of these big publishers talk about what games they are interested in publishing? It is a point of pride for them that they won't even CONSIDER publishing a title that has a sales potential of less than a half a million units. They put enough money into development and marketing that the games lose money if they sell less than 200K units. Of course, they publish crap that sells less than that all the time, but that's their high-stakes game, and the money that they and their partners make on the big winners pays for it all and then some. And they've been steadily transforming the whole industry in their image, convincing everyone that they are the only game in town.

The thing is, they cannot compete on the smaller level. You've got a bunch of fat-cat executives and high-powered marketing masterminds and a full legal staff and a bunch of money going out to all these different pieces of their pipeline. They've got MILLIONS in overhead. How in the world are they going to be able to afford to sponsor some wargame that has a maximum sales potential of 50,000? Shoot, if they tried to put out a dozen of these little games per year, they'd still only barely post interesting numbers and would more likely end up competing with themselves and shooting themselves in the foot if they tried that.

It's no more worth it to them than it would be worth it for Bill Gates to try and earn some extra money moonlighting as a fry cook at the Redmond McDonalds.

Meanwhile you'll have a team of three guys who figure that if they can get reach even half of that sales potential on their wargame with decent distribution and marketing, they'll do alright for themselves. There's PLENTY of room for specialists who can dominate their niche.

What there won't be much room for are low-quality "me-too" products that look and play like poor cousins of what the big boys are producing.

[luggage]

How in the world are they going to be able to afford to sponsor some wargame that has a maximum sales potential of 50,000?Maybe the market isn't that finite? (as someone earlier in the thread points out). What if the numbers were 500,000 or more.

All of this is just projecting into the future obviously, and we're always wrong. For me, it's a bit like running a corner shop and hearing that a huge supermarket is going to be built round the corner. Sure, my products might be a bit more obscure and hard to get than what the supermarket can carry but there's still a worry that people would rather go there and shop with comfortable, well known brands.

[Bluecat]

Don't let your opinion of EA cloud your view. The same point applies to a bunch of other publishers, EA was just as example. You might think what they do isn't very good but it sure makes them a lot of money and it's working for them.

True, I agree that it's pretty much the same standard for all the biggies at the moment. As you said EA was the example, I just went with it. But I do wonder how much longer EA can make that model work.

That's true when you're talking about games that take 2 years and have budgets to match but when games only take 3 months they can afford a lot of flops.

I wouldn't discount the effect of a big corporations inertia on the smaller projects it does. I've worked for a few really big companies (not in the games business) and they tend to stick to the same processes for all their projects. The problem is that the guy who managed Madden 2005 with its big budget (though granted, short dev cycle) may be the same guy who manages EA Super Breakout. While the project will be scheduled for a shorter timeframe, the big project inefficiencies will still come along for the ride. Unless... the manager concerned is an exceptional manager, and is able to scale the processes down accordingly. I haven't met too many of those though.

but when games only take 3 months they can afford a lot of flops.

I disagree. Dev costs don't scale linearly. Four 3 month projects don't cost the same as one 12 month project. And, a three month project in-house at EA costs much more than a three month project at an efficiently run small dev studio. For one thing, the overheads involved with ancillary personel must be huge.

The advantage that EA has is that they have a much wider income stream that can supplement any failed projects. But it wouldn't take too many small project failures to start to impact the profit margin. Shareholders don't like that. So while they may be able to afford a few losses, they still can really *afford* the losses.

This isn't true, EA and other big publishers are only interested in making money. It just happens in the retail market staying safe works. If they thought they could make enough money to make it worthwhile then I'm sure they'd write whatever it would take.

Yep, true. That's pretty much the case with any business. You don't keep the investors happy, then you don't stay in business.

But the way that the big publishers are approaching this is the same way that Hollywood is. Not taking risks. Every year lately we are seeing the same old games released. Every year brings a dozen sequels to previously successful titles, or a bunch of new games based on movies. These are the certain types of games I am thinking of.

The big game industry is becoming like the big movie industry. Primarily concerned with developing the same old same old, but every now and then picking up on a gem and seeing the potential in it. They see this as the way to keep making the big bucks, so in essense, certain types of games == money. Risk == less money.

I hope so, I really do, because if some of the larger publishers started to let their money do the talking it's going to be a bumpy ride. I know I can't afford to advertise all over the web.

This is what I meant before when I said innovative, strategic thinking can be rewarded.

Individuals might not be able to easily advertise all over the web. But collectives can.

Indie developers could be thinking about making strategic partnerships with other indies. (This forum is a great example of that.) The Japanese came up with the idea of a strategic form of partnership in the fifties or sixties (I think) called a Keratsu (sp?) This was an idea where different companies would collaborate with each other. If one company had more work than it could handle, it passed it on to another, understanding that when the situation was reversed, it would receive the help. These companies traded with each other, in some cases exclusively. My understanding is that this was one of the driving forces of Japanese growth during that period.

There are a lot of very talented people on this forum. There's no reason why something similar wouldn't work here.

[Bluecat]

For me, it's a bit like running a corner shop and hearing that a huge supermarket is going to be built round the corner. Sure, my products might be a bit more obscure and hard to get than what the supermarket can carry but there's still a worry that people would rather go there and shop with comfortable, well known brands.

The difference here is that the supermarket will take your business because they will not only offer what you have at a lower price, they will offer more. So your customers will go there simply because they can do all their shopping there in one convenient stop.

The internet on the other hand is like a mall. The little guys doing business alongside the big players. You walk out of the supermarket with your peas, carrots, and toilet paper, and drop into the video game store next door.

[gmcbay]

The big game industry is becoming like the big movie industry. Primarily concerned with developing the same old same old, but every now and then picking up on a gem and seeing the potential in it.


The indie game scene is exactly like that too. How many really original games are there for every 100 clones of decades old retail games?

When you get right down to it, EVERY industry is like that, not necessarily because they WANT to "play it safe", but because being innovative *and* interesting/fun is goddamn hardwork and often involves a lot of luck and timing as well.

I think the reason a lot of gamers/developers don't notice this in the videogame industry is that videogames are young enough that we can remember when EVERYTHING was new and interesting. After a certain amount of time, though, it gets more and more difficult to be truly innovative because all of the low-hanging fruits have already been picked.

And in any case, there are still plenty of fun and innovative games to be found in retail space, though IMO most of them are on consoles these days and not PCs.

There are big problems with the retail game industry (particularly, I think the working conditions/quality of life issues are the worst), but I don't think making innovative/fun games is one of them. Anyone who looks at the games of 2004 and doesn't find a lot of fun and interesting retail games to play is either not looking hard enough or is just an old crumudgeon.

And lastly, a lot of my favorite games of all time are sequels, so I hate to see people handwaving about the evils of sequels in gaming...

[papillon]

I may be a curmudgeon but I'm not old yet! Am I?

[Bluecat]

And lastly, a lot of my favorite games of all time are sequels, so I hate to see people handwaving about the evils of sequels in gaming...

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying sequels are evil. I *really* enjoyed playing Half-Life 2.

It's when sequels are chosen simply because they made money of the first game, but they don't have anything new to add. Well, they can be fun, and advancing technology can allow new features that would have been impossible before, but is Madden 2005 really any different from Madden 2004, 2003, ...?

While I didn't hate Doom 3, and thought the technology behind it was fabulous, I didn't think much of it. Gameplay-wise it wasn't much more than has gone before.

Will Katamari Damacy 2 be as good as the first?

[luggage]

Another thing to consider is how many people are on broadband now. Not so long ago you wouldn't dream of downloading 3.5 gig for a game. Now Steam is trying to prove that maybe it is possible. Think of Valve like a proof of concept for bigger publishers. :eek:

[Bluecat]

Another thing to consider is how many people are on broadband now. Not so long ago you wouldn't dream of downloading 3.5 gig for a game. Now Steam is trying to prove that maybe it is possible. Think of Valve like a proof of concept for bigger publishers. :eek:

Very true. But you know the cool thing? Valve is the one doing the research that we can all benefit from. :D

[luggage]

Very true. But you know the cool thing? Valve is the one doing the research that we can all benefit from. :D

How? What do we learn from Steam?

[Bluecat]

How? What do we learn from Steam?

Well. There are a few things as far as I can tell.

* Valve has proved that people will use their system to download their game. That means that there are a lot of people out there who might download my game using a similar system.

* If the game is good enough, or anticipated enough, people won't mind if they don't have a CD or box. That's sort of already proven by the downloadable games market, but a big AAA game hasn't proved this yet I think.

* There are some people who won't buy or even use Steam because it requires online activation, and apparently likes to remain connected to the internet. I can take this into account in designing my own service.

* While I haven't had issues activating HL2 or using Steam, others have. Finding out what could go wrong, and test for it in my own service.

Given time I could think of others.

[Promaginy]

For me, it's a bit like running a corner shop and hearing that a huge supermarket is going to be built round the corner. Sure, my products might be a bit more obscure and hard to get than what the supermarket can carry but there's still a worry that people would rather go there and shop with comfortable, well known brands.

For a smaller firm to compete with a larger one, they must find their Unique Selling Proposition. Basically, why would a customer come to you instead of someone else. In the case of the corner store - you can offer convenience in terms of location, specialty import items, a relaxed shopping atmosphere, super customer service, marketing gimmicks, etc.

As long as you were not planning on directly competing with Irrational by releasing a strategic superhero game, then why worry?

To me, it is great to see better quality items become available via download. I love strategy games and want to see more RPGs/Strategy games become indie. This will compete with the games we are working on, but a growing market means that there will be more customers to sell to.

[Nonz]

I can't see EA doing a breakout game, maybe EA Bejewelled 2006 or EA Collapse 2006 but not breakout, the figures aren't there.

And as for an EA portal, well didn't they buy out pogo.com? If that's not a games portal I don't know what is.

Personally I think the big gaming companies "going indie" and selling their product at a lower price would be the best thing that could happen.

Going from $59.99 down to $19.99 a game means that players can afford to buy two more indie games.

Yeah I know it's a pipe dream but there's nothing wrong with a little fantasy now and then. :)

Nonz.

[papillon]

Others distrust steam because supposedly they can use the system to cut off your game and all your other games if they catch you doing something they don't like.

Cheating in multiplayer is naughty and should get you kicked off official servers. It should not render your game and other nonrelated games inoperable EVERYWHERE, including offline.

I obviously don't own Half-Life so my reports are rather muddled. I could be wrong. But it bothers me enough that I don't want to buy something from anyone who suggests Steam was an influence, because I don't trust them not to take my games away.

Sadly, I am not the mainstream.

[luggage]

* Valve has proved that people will use their system to download their game. That means that there are a lot of people out there who might download my game using a similar system.We already knew this from Real Arcade, Reflexive, etc.
* If the game is good enough, or anticipated enough, people won't mind if they don't have a CD or box. That's sort of already proven by the downloadable games market, but a big AAA game hasn't proved this yet I think.As you say, it's already proven by the downloadable market, and seeing as I'm probably not going to be able to compete with AAA titles it's of no use. Apart from the fact that we have to prepare to compete with AAA titles in a market that usually doesn't have them.
* There are some people who won't buy or even use Steam because it requires online activation, and apparently likes to remain connected to the internet. I can take this into account in designing my own service.And are you that surprised by this? Common sense would tell you the more barriers there are to get the game going the less keen customers will be.
* While I haven't had issues activating HL2 or using Steam, others have. Finding out what could go wrong, and test for it in my own service.But this is similar to your other points, if you're intent on designing a Steam like system there's obviously plenty of things you could learn from Steam. However, how many here are thinking of this? I'm not - I think it's a slippery path having customers install Steam like software, where will it end? If anything I'd go for an integrated version like Reflexive used to have. (which reminds me, James. Any idea on why it was removed? Now there's just links to the website).

So, basically, if you're writing a Steam like system then, yes, you can learn from it. If you're not writing a Steam like system there's not much you can take from it. Apart from maybe people are willing to download 3.5 gig's of content - but it costs an awful lot to generate that content.

[gmcbay]

Yeah, that's just what gamers need & want, every developer and publisher in the world making their own Steam-like service. My system tray isn't full enough and I don't have nearly enough processes running in the background, please add more -- one for each game I install!

Sarcasm aside, I don't think Steam proved anything other than people really, really wanted to get their hands on Half-Life 2 after waiting 5 years for it.
When some other company duplicates the "success" of Steam with a game that isn't a sequel to one of the biggest PC games ever, then maybe I'll change my mind.

[luggage]

As long as you were not planning on directly competing with Irrational by releasing a strategic superhero game, then why worry?Short term I'm not worried, but long term is something we should be thinking about. For example, I'm currently working on a golf game (for a different platform altogether) the option is there to convert it to a full round of golf and downloadable. Now what if I had to compete with a downloadable and more widely advertised version of PGA Tour Golf?

I can't see EA doing a breakout game, maybe EA Bejewelled 2006 or EA Collapse 2006 but not breakout, the figures aren't there.A figure was quoted of $40,000 a month for a hit breakout game. $480,000 a year and that's the current climate. Sure, only the very best selling game might make this but if the moneys there the big boys will come.

Going from $59.99 down to $19.99 a game means that players can afford to buy two more indie gamesAnd it'll mean indie developers are suddenly competing with AAA titles on the same price point. Soon the most likely market for indie games will be those machines that aren't good enough to run the latest games. But then if there's money to be made there then once again the big boys will come.

It's inevitable the big publishers will offer their games as downloads. It cuts out the middleman and gives them a higher profit margin (no cd's, no boxes, no manuals, no distribution (apart from a sizeable download), no shops taking cuts.

The question is how do we adapt? Is Bluecat onto the right idea with a collaboration?

[Pyabo]

What if a big league player go indie (after accumulated some money) and sells its games around 5.99 for a year or two. Won't it lead to the
death of some of us with less reserves?

This would *definitely* not happen... the only reason you see AAA titles on the shelves at $10 is because retailers or publishers are pushing out old stock and they've already made a mint selling the game at the $50 price point for the first 8 weeks it was out. This just isn't going to happen when developers are self-publishing; it doesn't make economic sense. This is basically just yet another symptom of how crazily broken the current retail model is.

[luggage]

This would *definitely* not happen... the only reason you see AAA titles on the shelves at $10 is because retailers or publishers are pushing out old stock and they've already made a mint selling the game at the $50 price point for the first 8 weeks it was out. This just isn't going to happen when developers are self-publishing; it doesn't make economic sense. This is basically just yet another symptom of how crazily broken the current retail model is.Not quite true, I mean, the situation might not happen but when you see AAA games at $10 it's because it'll extend their shelf life - not just because it's old stock. They even recompiled Theme Park 2 so it would work on later machines and reprinted it. By putting it out as budget they can eek out a few extra pounds worth of sales. I do agree though that I can't imagine big name publishers sticking their latest titles out for $10.

[Bluecat]

Others distrust steam because supposedly they can use the system to cut off your game and all your other games if they catch you doing something they don't like.

Cheating in multiplayer is naughty and should get you kicked off official servers. It should not render your game and other nonrelated games inoperable EVERYWHERE, including offline.


That's reasonable. Though I'd be happy to see all online activity banned. The only thing that shouldn't be affected is the offline single or multiplayer.

[Air]

Fair enough luggage. You've convinced me. EA Wins. Game over. Better start looking for a change in career.

You've done a fine job pointing out all the reasons EA (and others like it) can win, but they haven't pounded you, me, or anyone else on this forum into submission yet. Maybe its because of reasons others have pointed out (that you've effectively rebuttled) or maybe its for reasons none of us can easily explain. Maybe the scope of the world is still considerably larger than you're led to believe, and the seemingly omnipotent grip of EA itself is simply incapable of clutching the entire thing for itself. Who knows.

My point is that worrying about what the big boys are going to do next week to crush you is not really constructive, unless your conclusion is to simply "do something else other than gamedev" or "apply for a job at EA." If that's the case, fine. I suggest you start working toward your new goals that, hopefully, won't also be thwarted by another 'megaopoly'. Hanging around this thread trying to prove that indie gamedev is a dead end (especially when current real business trends almost exclusively point in the opposite direction) isn't doing yourself any favors.

Now if you'd like to be a doomsayer and continue to work toward your inevitable doom (a martyr syndrome), that's fine too. But even in that case, I suggest you spend less time doomsaying and more time trying to conjure real solutions to real gamedev problems-- particuarly things you actually have control over. At least that way, when EA comes and destroys the indie gamedev world with a single mighty stomp of its size 231 shoe, you'll have the self-pride knowing that at least you worked willinging and diligently until the end, on the things you personally feel as being good and right.

So the question is, if EA's going to take over, what might you propose as a solution? How do we adapt? How do we prepare wisely, without bottling up and living in constant fear of things we cannot control?

... or is that the only option?

[Escotia]

I think you're being a bit harsh on Luggage there. He's never said it's time to waive the white flag. Nor has he said that none of us would survive big publishers like EA being involved in the casual/downloadable games market.

As far as I could see his opinion was that:
- the more 'big players' there are in a market, the tougher it gets for all the 'small players';
- this happens in all industries;
- that there's no reason to think that we have some divine right to be different because we write games;
- that it's a 'head in the sand' attitude to think that the big players will not move in.

Of course, despite what some posters here would have you believe, EA are already successfully involved in this market and in competition with most of us. If you haven't visited www.pogo.com you really should and if you think they're not interested in doing the 'little games like what we do', then you should compare www.playbuzzwords.com and Tumble Bees (http://playweb09.pogo.com/home/images/screenshots/jumbee-lg.jpg) * Edit (Correction): The browser playable (Java) version of Tumble Bees came first. *

The funny thing is that you've attacked Luggage for his defeatist attitude and inflexibility, despite him saying:
I'm here for the long haul so adapting will have to be done, doesn't mean I'm going to be happy about it.

I have to say that increasingly it seems like people don't read whole threads before posting, so their responses just end up adding to the noise.

[JoeMaru]

I think the point of what everyone is trying to say is that.. EA will not be able to compete with you if you stay flexible, stay one step ahead of them, and find your niche. The pie is growing, and we can either look for ways to get in a niche before the big guys do, or move on if they start moving into our territory.

Also note that it is not necessarily an 'us' versus 'them'.. there are a few people here that are getting their games on Xbox live arcade. We made our games, we made them on our terms, with our IP, and our money, and we can find ways to work with the big guys instead of worry about them 'taking over'.

The key to survival for the small guy is agility. Think ahead, move fast, respond quickly to give the audience what they want.

I personally think that it is needless worry. I have never been in a meeting at EA, but I have been in marketing/strategy meetings of a big publisher. If my experience has anything to say about it.. I would say that we have nothing to worry about. I don't think the big players can strategize their way out of a paper bag.

Look to the future and chart your course. Things will change, and it will become more competetive and harder to survive unless you break from the mold and try to differentiate yoruself.

of course all the things luggage is saying could come to pass.. but I am not really all that worried. We are looking to make good games that players want to play and do it with budgets that the big players can't even come close to competing with. If others come in and can do it faster, better, and cheaper, moe power to them. It is survival of the fittest. I know that we (my company) can make good games. Good games wil always have a market. Things may get rocky in the future for all of us, but I am convinved that we will always be able to make something that people will find value in. and if things go well for us, it will be our games, our ideas, done on our terms, with our money..

it does bring up the question though.. why is one doing this? For me, it is about making games I want to make, and doing it the way I think it should be done.

[Air]

I have to say that increasingly it seems like people don't read whole threads before posting, so their responses just end up adding to the noise.
Yes I read that specific quote and that was one of the deciding factors in me making my post in fact. So go figure. However you are right, I didn't as carefully read the more recent posts (as they had seemingly trailed off into conversation about Steam, something I don't have any interest in, and thus is a common side effect of a thread being more active than my available time to read every quoted reply). And upon further review I can calculate that Luggage was playing a devils' advocate of sorts, with his latest post actually being almost identical to mine in intended purpose. (heh)

I know I come across very bitter. Its hard for me not to. Even when feeling inspired or trying to be helpful, my thoughts tend to be quite lacking in emotional spirit and my focus on productivity and constructicism come across coldly. My biggest mistake was that to me there's simply a non-issue that big companies are and always will pose a threat to indies. That's just been a fact of life in all of my business ventures, so arguing the validity of that point seems silly to me. I've spent years battling depression brought on by dwelling on all the negative aspects of (and lack of control over) big competition, and what I read reminded me of myself during that time. Emotional trigger? perhaps, yes.

Anyways, on to solutions...
I have a suggested solution, but it's probably one some indies wouldn't be too receptive of initially: Teamwork.
Actually, this forum is teamwork in action already, and all we need to do is keep the focus and the dedication. I think that by working as a community we can at least take away a chunk of big publishers' inherent advantages. I think we can do so while still working on our own terms (which is the Indie way). I think James Smith is doing a great job of building the sort of open discussion and tech-sharing system that we should all encourage and try to contribute to.

The hard part is understanding and accepting that it won't garuantee success for everyone, but it will give everyone a fighting chance-- something we might not have individually if/when competition stiffens. There's no perfect solution but there are better-than-nothing solutions, most of which are tied to potentially difficult concepts of sharing and trust. But its these things that can and will give us an advantage.

[Anthony Flack]

I think the main worry is for people who rely on lack of competition to sell substandard products - and those days are largely behind us now, anyway.


you should compare www.playbuzzwords.com and Tumble Bees with the thought in your head that Beesley's Buzz Words came first.


Oh dear, that is vile. Scumbags.

[gpetersz]

Well, I mostly agree with luggage as you've might figured out from my previous post. Though, I haven't said either that anybody should hands-up or quit.

I think it is only going to be harder to compete with structures like any retail/indie clone firm (one that might also produce retail titles while producing indie shareware as well). I haven't wanted to ring the alarm or anything else. I am only in this business as an artist, yet (but I graduated as a programmer, strange thing I am... :) ), but it was always my dream to do games. I will make them and no EA will stop me.

Only the circumstances will be harder to conquer. And I don't see the point to shrug
and walk away without caring the topic. I mean, at the moment nothing is really threatening (only other indies' products :D) but
you have to be cautious and watch the changes of the market. And
bigger developers winking on the market is something one must consider.
In my opinion.

It will increase the trust towards other indies as well, but any bigger developer who might be able to divide its resources (for example regroup some of the crew into 3-4 small 3-4 people studios) and release 10 times the amount of games as me during the same amount of time, might be a danger. And it is not because I want to do "shitty" games for an uncompeted market, but even if I produce the same quality breakout as they do, but they do 3 of it there is a possibility that my sales would fall to 25% without figuring out something else.

There are only preconceptions and talkings from me now, but hey, this
forum is for us to talk about what concerns us, and forgive me if
I have a different point of view ;) .

(something else: 5.99 was FICTIOUS, as other "facts" in my post, there aren't any facts, I don't plan to do a breakout clone, I am only thinking loudly and sharing my thoughts with you guys, these are only "what if"-s, trying to consider possibilites, dangers, and opportunities)

...and talking too much again, sorry.

[Dan MacDonald]

I think the main worry is for people who rely on lack of competition to sell substandard products - and those days are largely behind us now, anyway.

Oh dear, that is vile. Scumbags.

Not to derail my own thread, but this one totally took over grab.com recently...

http://www.grab.com/games/view.php?game=669 (http://http://www.grab.com/games/view.php?game=669)

[Ricardo C]

Not to derail my own thread, but this one totally took over grab.com recently...

http://www.grab.com/games/view.php?game=669 (http://http://www.grab.com/games/view.php?game=669)

This (and Tumble Bees) is the kind of clone I do object to. I have no problem with imitating someone else's gameplay, but blatantly swiping the theme and content is beyond the pale, at least for me.

[Promaginy]

Short term I'm not worried, but long term is something we should be thinking about. For example, I'm currently working on a golf game (for a different platform altogether) the option is there to convert it to a full round of golf and downloadable. Now what if I had to compete with a downloadable and more widely advertised version of PGA Tour Golf?

The question is how do we adapt? Is Bluecat onto the right idea with a collaboration?

You're right - an eye to the future is a wise thing. But concerning your golf game you can create a unique version of golf. Alter the rules in some fashion or make it such a hard-core sim that nobody can touch it.

Collaboration is an excellent idea. My first game is a collaboration effort. I am not a coder so I am depending on another outfit to do this. We are creating a marketing plan together and basically will jointly benefit from the revenue of the game.

[Triple_Fox]

I don't see big publishers moving into "indie territory" as a threat - they have to do what we're doing or they fail, it's as simple as that. They can't throw money around to simply pump up a niche game with AAA-style polish because that becomes unprofitable. They also can't rely on a "Breakout 2kx" strategy because while they have a lot of technical knowhow this doesn't necessarily translate to significant year-to-year improvements in a game that is already as well-implemented as Breakout. In territory that's been heavily explored/cloned like this and mostly needs long-term refinement and substance rather than simple polish, free/open-source games tend to survive the best - they just move much more slowly than commerical competitors and take a while to get off the ground. They also can suffer from being a bit "plain-vanilla," but I think a "Breakout 2kx" would encounter the same trouble.

AAAs can continue to grow bigger and more expensive because there is no known limit - the technical talent hasn't yet hit a wall. In gameplay, though, only a few genuinely new ideas appear each year. Eventually one hits a wall in gameplay, having put in all the ideas that you know of and that your approach allows. When I think of two of last year's great indies, Breakquest and Gish, I think of the addition of physics as a significant portion of gameplay. While both can still find ways to improve, their initial novelty is now spent. This is the problem with a big publisher trying to approach our kinds of games like they would a AAA - they're competing on ideas, and nobody's got an advantage with ideas.

So that leaves the options of either continuing on with blockbusters, a strategy that will continue to consolidate the retail industry into a few "big guys" as the stakes grow ever-higher, or working in a low-budget realm just as we do - give groups of two or three guys a short-term deadline to finish a game, and then publish them all. In both cases nothing really changes.

As for price competition, I think the idea is silly. For one thing, in the long term the number of AAAs released is likely to decline as more and more people are priced out of that competition. At the same time, titles will become more generic to lower their risk. This loss of originality means that it's irrelevant whether they're offered at a budget price or not - they're just not in the same market as us at all anymore. McDonalds may cost less and be marketed better than a small gourmet hamburger shop, but the small shop satisfies expectations of taste and style that McDonald's cannot.

[Jay_Kyburz]

This thread has kind of moved away from Irrational but I just wanted to jump in and say hello. I'm an Irrational employee and was Lead Artist on the original Freedom Force. I didn't work on the new FFvsTTR because I was busy on Tribes:Vengeance.

I'm a regular reader here but don't post very often. Rather than playing WoW at home at night I'm working on my first "indie game" where I get to do things I'm not allowed to do at work during the day. (like programming)

[Promaginy]

I'm a regular reader here but don't post very often. Rather than playing WoW at home at night I'm working on my first "indie game" where I get to do things I'm not allowed to do at work during the day. (like programming)

Hi Jay,

I think the original FF was grand and am looking forward to the next installment. Since you come from an insider's perspective, do you think more retail developers will move into downloadable games?

[Jay_Kyburz]

Who knows?

From what I understand, Irrationals main goal was to get off the work for hire treadmill. To have enough cash in the bank to make the kinds of games they want to make, and worry about selling them to distributors or publishes later.

90% of the mainstream game industry has their sights set on the console market. The XBox 2 and PS 3. It's getting harder to find funding for PC games. Even the genres we traditionally consider PC, such as FPS's, are being made for console first and ported later. This means that little attention is being given to features only the PC can provide.

The numbers of new, mainstream, PC only, titles are on the decline. This will open opportunities for indie developers. (I'd like to think)

[Promaginy]

That is a big reason why I prefer PCs over consoles. The type of games that are developed for the PC is the strategy, RPG, and hybrid titles that are much harder to duplicate on the console.

I would like to see this market grow in the downloadable/shareware industry. That is why I am in favor of seeing Irrational take the steps it has.

Good luck to yourself and Irrational.

[VladR]

I would like to see this market grow in the downloadable/shareware industry. That is why I am in favor of seeing Irrational take the steps it has.
Well, we actually are creating RPGs as an indie team. But it`s problem to sell it to retail even as budget because our features aren`t on par with games from massive teams (and by massive here I mean teams with 10 people, not some 40). We still haven`t sold our Western action RPG game online, so maybe there is some potential, who knows. Or what would you propose ?

[Promaginy]

Well, we actually are creating RPGs as an indie team. But it`s problem to sell it to retail even as budget because our features aren`t on par with games from massive teams (and by massive here I mean teams with 10 people, not some 40). We still haven`t sold our Western action RPG game online, so maybe there is some potential, who knows. Or what would you propose ?

Following Spiderweb's model - they create deep RPGs that are rich in gameplay and story but don't bother to compete with the high-end graphics and SFX.

If your game has a unique hook (setting, interface, characters, rule set) then you need to emphasize that. You can develop a following based upon any combination of those hooks. For examples, more games are allowing players to play dragons instead of dragon-slayers.