Indies versus everyone

[Reactor]

I'm not sure if this is the best forum to put this in, but as long as no one freaks out over it being noise, I'm happy ;)

Based on a comment by formfarbeminze,

the essence of how i understand the indie spirit, regardless in which cultural area you work, is to go for the work you imagine. your desire comes first. it creates the reality [of your artwork]. in mainstream it is the other way round: a reality from outside of your personality creates your desire.


It might just be me, but this whole 'indie spirit' thing feels like a load of hoo-hah. Aside from working conditions, and development processes, mainstream developers (whoever they are) aren't that different to your average indie. It's not like there's some magical aura over all indie developers that allows them to create with some unrestricted creativity. Both indies and mainstream guys want one thing- to be making games and earning some cash, so they can do it for as long as they can. In my opinion, this whole indies versus mainstream thing has got to die. I never seem to hear the end of 'indies vs portals' or 'indies vs AAA developers' or 'indies vs the olympics' (okay, so maybe not the last one).

Has anyone ever thought that people (or dev houses) should stand on their own merits, instead of being crushed into a box of prejudice? I realise it feels to good to have a group of underdog developers supporting each other. I like that feeling too. But, do we have to rag on the pro guys, as if they can't sustain an original thought, or make a game with complete freedom of development? I think it sucks when indies do that. This isn't Starwars, guys. It's not the harmless (yet fun-loving) ewoks versus the dark side. We're all developers. Let's support them, and maybe (just maybe) they'll have a reason to support us back.

[shoecake]

Only been using this forum for a few days and used Dexterity forums a fair bit last year... I've not seen much of the Indies vs thing you mention. On all forums you will get a little bit of "us and them" but that's because the forum has a specific subject (that of Indie Game Dev) and quite often people will need to compare their position (as an Indie) with that of others (as non Indies.)

Indies and mainstream guys (as you put it) will share many desires (making games, making money etc.) but there will always be very big differences. Most "Mainstream guys" don't need to handle things like marketing, outsourcing work, sales, personal time management, budgeting on tools/software, motivational issues, working with 3rd party publishers etc. The differences are endless and because of these differences theres always going to be comparisons.

You only have to spend a bit of time working under commercial development conditions before you realize how much the 'indie spirit' is worth appreciating. Sometimes the freedom you get from Indie development can be so satisfying that some of us may get a little emotional when comparing it with mainstream development. I don't think it's really meant to be negative towards other peoples choice.

Paul

[andyb]

I think the real argument is Indie vs "the coporate machine". You're right that the majority of mainstream game devs have ideals that aren't that far from an Indie, however they've chosen (or been forced through circumstance) to take a job with a company that won't let them (in 99% of cases I'd imagine) choose what title they wish to work on next. The companies want to make money, the devs want to earn money. Indies want to earn money too, but we'd rather it was done through customers buying the games WE choose to develop rather than just following the trend de jour.

[MiCo Games]

It seems like every person have their own definition of what it means to be an indie, and what you should be doing to be accepted as an indie.

For me, it have nothing to do with lifestyle, creativity, company size etc. For me, being an indie means that you fund your development independantly, meaning that no publisher or private investor is paying for anything.

From this comes some good things, like having to answer to noone but the customers. But personally, I don't involve all that other stuff that some people likes to associate with "the indie spirit" whatever that is supposed to mean.

From this follows, that for me, mainstream developers can be indies, retail developers can be indies, AAA developers can be indies. Developers living off of publishers advances, however, I don't consider to be indies.

[Jack Norton]

You only have to spend a bit of time working under commercial development conditions before you realize how much the 'indie spirit' is worth appreciating. Sometimes the freedom you get from Indie development can be so satisfying that some of us may get a little emotional when comparing it with mainstream development. I don't think it's really meant to be negative towards other peoples choice.
I think that you got the point.
Personally I'd not be against working for a good software house as level/game designer (and I may try to do that if my indie business won't be good enough).
But my personal experience was VERY bad, and talking with people, most say that there's no comparison to the freedom of indie dev.
I guess that's not our fault if the majority of the software houses threat people badly...! of course there will be some who don't do that, but from my experience (not direct, talking with others) I don't know many.

About originality of commercial games... Half-life 2, Pro evolution soccer 4, Doom 3, Everquest 2, supergame 10, FPSmaster 48, ultimatemastergame 1882... titles says all ;) hehehe

[Nemesis]

You should have really quoted:
*FINAL* Fantasy [x]
*ULTIMA* [x]
The names are quite ironic if you ask me.

[Jack Norton]

oh yes... how I did forgot about those games? :)

[Gilzu]

It seems like every person have their own definition of what it means to be an indie, and what you should be doing to be accepted as an indie.

in·de·pen·dent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nd-pndnt)
adj.
1. Not governed by a foreign power; self-governing.
2. Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.
3. Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.
often Independent Affiliated with or loyal to no one political party or organization.
4. Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity: an independent food store; an independent film.
5. Not relying on others for support, care, or funds; self-supporting.
Providing or being sufficient income to enable one to live without working: a person of independent means.

So besides quoting the dictionary, my point is that you are truly an Indie if you are in the control of your business and free to set your own rules. Whatever rules they are, even if you choose to have a stiff corporate rules, you were the one who choose them.

So if you want to be accepted by others - its your choice, acting by your wishes (even if they contridict others) doesn't mean you arent an Indie.

[MiCo Games]

So besides quoting the dictionary, my point is that you are truly an Indie if you are in the control of your business and free to set your own rules. Whatever rules they are, even if you choose to have a stiff corporate rules, you were the one who choose them.

Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about... Everyone have their own definition of what "indie" means. Yours is to be in control of your business and free to set your own rules. My definition is self-funding.

As for the dictionary definition... then I guess there are no indies in the world, because who can claim they are not influenced by someone or something else? :-) (I remember seeing an interview with a music artist, think it could have been Meatloaf, who said that he never listens to music, and goes out of his way to not accidentally be exposed to it, because he doesn't want it to influence his own composing... I guess he's quite close to the dictionary definition of "in·de·pen·dent " :D

[EpicBoy]

About originality of commercial games... Half-life 2, Pro evolution soccer 4, Doom 3, Everquest 2, supergame 10, FPSmaster 48, ultimatemastergame 1882... titles says all hehehe
That's such a load though, seriously. You're telling me that if an indie project does really well, there won't be sequels? If you really think that, you're kidding yourself...

[BongPig]

Gilzu's dictionary description is interesting isnt it!?

Certainly throws up some questions though.

So, would having a bank loan make you non-indie?

Say we are in a situation where a large publisher offers us a great deal on our next game. Imagine ( as hard as it is ) that they have no influence at all on the game itself. They simply trust that we'll deliver the goods. The only thing they do offer us is development funds and a great royalty deal. We are, of course, free to say yes or no.
If we take that deal, does that make us non-indie?

If it does, whats the difference between this and getting a bank loan?

[Coyote]

A lot of us here have done both independent work as well as the big studios.

Believe me - the pros working on games for the big publishers have almost exactly the same complaints about the business as the indies do. If anything, starting my own little part-time game development houses has made me MORE sympathetic to the publishers than I was when I worked for them. I still believe developers get the short end of the stick in the whole equation, but I'm more sympathetic to the decision-making process that takes place.

What it ultimately comes down to is willingness to take risk. The big publishing companies are generally NOT run by gamers. They are pure businessmen. They are all about maximizing the value of the company to the shareholders. This generally means they play by the book, and they won't be easily swayed to take a big risk "because its cool." They may do it because they think the coolness factor is high enough that there's a reasonable chance for a decent payoff at the end, though.

On the other hand, while indies are generally in the same boat of trying to maximize the value of their companies, they typically got their start because they LOVE GAMES (you sure don't get into this to get rich!). So while there's still the financial motivation behind decisions, you may get a little bit more willingness to take a risk out of the love of games.

Not a huge difference there, but I think it exists. I also think there's a lot of bigger-budget game studios out there with HIGHLY original half-finished games that were just never picked up by publishers.

[MiCo Games]

Yes, interesting ideed :)

Still speaking strictly for myself here, based on my own personal definition of "indie": For me, there is a difference between the bank loan and your (hypthetical!) publisher deal. With a bank loan, I still own the game I'm producing, and I own it in full (unless I've used the game as security for the loan I guess... but let's ignore that, as it's not exactly likely :) )

When a publisher is funding the game, even if they choose not to influence the game at all (I'm trying hard to imagine it :) ) they still own it to some extent, and I'm not free to pursue any deal I want when it is done. I'm not free to cancel it to start something else. And there's probably a risk that they cut the funding at any time they feel like (depending on the deal of course). Same thing if development is funded by a private investor.

But as I said before, this is based purely on my personal opinion that "indie" equals "self-funded". If you don't share this definition, you'll probably not accept my argumentation...

[BongPig]

If you used a bank loan to fund your game then you dont own it. It seems like you do so long as you keep paying the bank back. But stop the payments and then see what happens.
The publisher is no different. If you stop making your game, then they want thier money back. This has been done to publishers time and time again. In most cases they never get thier money back, so in a way, the bank is worse becasue they will ALWAYS get thier shit back! :mad:

To quote:-
"But as I said before, this is based purely on my personal opinion that "indie" equals "self-funded". If you don't share this definition, you'll probably not accept my argumentation..."
How can anybody say they are self-funded when the money comes from a bank!? Its nonsense.

The only real point we could argue is that of distribution. Yes, if you sign up with a publisher then the finished game can still belong to you, but obviously the publisher wants to distribute the game to make thier money back.

So why does this make me non-indie? I saw an opportunity for excellent distribution and took it. My choice. Is this any different to finishing your game and then using a company to distribute your game for you?

( EDIT : maybe i should be clear here. When I say 'me', its not really me. Just for arguments sake. Better than saying 'you'. :) )

In these cases, the choice is always yours. Always independent.

[Reactor]

I'm glad I brought this up. There's some great thoughts on here. Anyway, carry on ;)

[MiCo Games]

So why does this make me non-indie?

I'm not saying that it makes you non-indie. I'm saying that it would make me non-indie.

[Bluecat]

If you look at the dictionary definition posted above, I would think that Id Software qualifies as an indie developer. They are self funded (even if Activision pays them an advance for the right to publish Doom3,) they originated the FPS, so they are not being influenced by anyone other than themselves**, and they make the games that they want to make, no outside entity has control of their creative process. I guess you could add 3DRealms to that list as well. Any others?

For me, the self funding and the control of creativity are what makes an independant developer. Of course there are other parts of the definition, but these two are the most important.

Cheers

John

[BongPig]

Mattias, explain.
Why would it make you non-indie?
( in your opinion... of course. )

[Dan MacDonald]

I think what he's implying that everyone has their own definition of indie, for him he wouldn't consider himself indie with a bank loan, but he doesn't have a problem with you calling yourself indie WITH a bank loan (if you even have one)

My contention has always been, the term indie is pretty much meaningless when it comes to indie game development. Anyone anywhere can call themselves independent; heck Monolith considers themselves to be an indie developer because they aren’t owned by a publishing company like EA or Activision.

The point is no definition is enforceable, independent the word has a specific definition in the dictionary, but the term "indie developer" is defined in 16bit shades of grayscale. There's no way to actually separate "true" indies, from "wannabe" indies or however you want to split it up.

So like Mattias says, what makes you indie may not make him indie, and I think any attempts to define some standard for "indie developer" and attempt to make others comply with that definition is pretty deep in to (what i call) the cult of the indie developer territory.

[BongPig]

Thats my ( very long winded ) point Dan.

If we all accept that the term indie has different meanings for each individual, then why do we use it?
I completly agree that a word like that is pointless in the context of conversation between two people.
So I ask again, why do we use the term in a social forum when the word is pointless?

Hell, why call the forum indiegamer forums?

Am I making a valid point or being a dickhead!? :D

[princec]

It is a basic feature of people that they like to join gangs to feel more secure and stronger. We band together as "indies" because it creates a social group from which we draw support and encouragement and assistance. Other than that, myself I couldn't care less if we were called wage slaves or code monkeys.

Cas :)

[BongPig]

Indie is a rubbish word for a gang.
I n d i e .... yew!

How about Flimbolians?

[Dan MacDonald]

Hell, why call the forum indiegamer forums?



We use it because it has a connotation that is familiar to everyone in our little community. But as we all know a general idea or connotation does not imply that a hard and fast definition exists. In the most general connotation and one that I think is the most pervasive, indie developers are people who make their own games. "Indie" games are generally made by individuals or small teams working from home for the most part.

You can already see that in terms of a definition of indie these "connotations" are already failing, however those are the types of things that (at least amongst game developers) that come to mind when think of "indie developer".

And hey, if your going to have a moniker to try and encompass the diverse characters and contexts that indie developers hail from, you might as well have a useless one like "indie", because any attempts to come up with a more precise definition are bound to fail :)

[Coyote]

Oh, no! We're getting into the "more independent than thou!" wars!!!

My goal is not to produce games independent of any outside sources of investment, distribution, or publishing. IMO, that's a stupid goal... it doesn't go anywhere. It gains you bragging rights, I guess. Maybe if you are very insecure it might help you gain confidence. But sheesh, folks --- if you want to be successful, you have to learn to work & cooperate with people. Make partnerships and business agreements. Negotiate mutually beneficial positions. If done right, the total is much greater than the sum of its parts.

To me, where I see the spectrum, is that "independent" means you do business without involving the major powers that control most of the industry. You don't NEED EA's blessing (or cash) before proceeding on your next project. To the independent developer, the publishers are commodities, rather than the other way around. I consider id software to be independent - even though they've sold their last several games through major publishers. But their independence has meant that they can pick and choose their offers for publication --- that's success in my book.

But I don't see that by calling myself independent that I need to become an 'artiste', don a black beret, grow a goatee, and eschew good business decisions for the sake of 'my art' - or turn my nose up at those who do.

A great quote from skotos.net:
As one illustration of this phenomenon, how many of the following names do you recognize: Thomas Kyd, Ben Jonson, Christopher Marlowe, Inigo Jones and Thomas Middleton. The average person probably won’t recognize even one of the names, though college theater students and those with an academic or literary bent will recognize one or two of them easily. They were all Elizabethan poets and playwrights who were widely considered in their own time to have written works that were Art. Each was learned, well-versed in the use of the Greek and Latin that were the rage in academia of the time, and the customs, mores and themes that appealed to the educated noble class that kept most of them alive with honorariums. Most of them couldn’t draw a crowd with a public performance of their work, so they took to writing for and dedicating their works to moneyed nobles, who were then expected to send a gift to the author. Each was also considered a far better Artist than one other of their peer group.

That contemporary of these great artists was considered by his peers to be a mere Entertainer, a craftsman and panderer to the masses, the "penny knaves," as Jonson derisively called them in reference to the cost of admission to the cheap seats. His work was full of exciting swordfights, hot-blooded romance and all the other things that appealed to the average Joe. Indeed, he was the Aaron Spelling of his day, a man who made good money appealing to those penny knaves and who was liked personally by his peers, but was not respected by them for his works. When Henry Peacham published The Complete Gentleman in 1622, this poet and playwright’s name was not on the list of great Elizabethan poets, although it is certain that Peacham knew the man personally at least as early as 1595. In case you haven’t already figured it out, the person we’re talking about here was William Shakespeare.

Being an indie isn't so much what you do, it's simply how you go about it.

[BongPig]

That'll do me Dan.

... untill the next 'what is indie' thread. ;)

[formfarbeminze]

peter molyneux expresses better than me, what in my regard is the most important and rewarding issue of being 'indie':

"You know, I can think of something and make it real. How cool is that?"

[Coyote]

I like his answer better than mine...

[impossible]

There are a lot of people calling themselves independent now. Basically anyone that isn't a big publisher, or owned or funded by a big publisher could be considered independent. I'm pretty sure this is IGDA's definition of independent, and for that reason Savage was considered an independent game. I've heard everyone from kids making tetris clones and unfinished 3D engines on gamedev.net to self funded major mainstream industry developers referred to as independent.

[gmcbay]

Well, technically, any company that funds their own developement *is* "independent".

Same with movies. In strict technical terms, the Star Wars prequels are indie films....

[EpicBoy]

You'd be hard pressed to argue that Epic Games is not an indie developer. We are entirely self funded and have no obligations to anyone but ourselves. Sure, we have product that needs to be delivered in a reasonable amount of time but we are the ones who decide when something is ready to be shipped.

So ... even though 50+ people work here and we crank out some of the best selling FPS games of all time ... we're still technically indie developers.

[grimreaper]

Epicboy has a point. Where does one draw the line at "indy"?

Anyway, I never understood this "indy" thing. Sounds more like a romantic myth to me: lone back-room coder against the world...

My experience in working for other people has been great. At my current job (IT security-related software house) we work on really interesting tech. I spend most (~90%) of my time on R&D and my manager is great enough to give me the time and resources to do it the way I want. Incredibly, I'm paid for this! :D

Writing games too involves a certain amount of R&D but if you're an indy you have to fund this yourself. What's more only 20% of a game's code is sexy - the rest is just grunt work. Being an indy is hard. And if you're lucky and really hardworking it can be financially rewarding.

So please stop wailing against those corporate "monsters". That regular pay check at the end of the month is effectively subsiding your indie game.

grimreaper

[paulm]

@Reactor: You may regard the "us vs. them" aspect of indie development as baloney, but in some cases it is quite worthy. For instance, I'm in Adelaide, as I notice you're in Perth, and there is a small, but growing independent scene growing here through a website known as Adelindie.

The developers on the board ranges from wannabe to seasoned professional, but all of us share a common bond in developing for ourselves and making people realise that Ratbag isn't the only games company in Adelaide (though it is now, because all the others have gone out of business).

We've been considering lobbying the Government for some support in the way of some kind of assistance, and ironically, anyone in Government points you directly to the GDAA - a body of established game developers whose board members consist mostly of the heads of the aforementioned established developers.

This doesn't bode well for startups and indies, as it seems most Government funding (if any) gets redirected to those in the establishment. So for now, it seems Ratbag will be the only games developer in Adelaide... for now.

Cheers,
Paul.

[Bluecat]

Paul,

There was a government funded organisation set up some time ago with a very Aboriginal sounding name. Njjarparti or something like it, I can never remember the exact name. It was set up to assist multi-media type companies I think. It might be worth looking up.

I'd also suggest trying to make contact with the guys from Ratbag. I believe they started as an indie developer and managed to get a publisher for their games, so they might be able to give you some tips. I believe they also do talks at the AGDC, so if you attend that you might be able to catch up with one of them there. My understanding is that they are very approachable.

Also, have you looked into Federal assistance. It's possible there are some grants and assistance that you can apply for there.

Cheers

John

[paulm]

John,

Thanks for the input.

Ngapartji actually closed down some time ago, which was unfortunate. I had a friend who worked there, and they were just losing too much money. It was mainly a cafe, with courses to help people.

As for the Ratbag guys, yes most of the employees are very approachable, and I've talked to many of the, but the two who started it are always busy. I've also spoken to numerous ex-employees (many of who are turning indie now) and even the guy who helped them start up their business at the local Business Enterprise Centre, who told me they were successful in building their brand because they focussed on racing games. I argued the point that they'd dug a hole for themselves by doing this, but 'money talks'.

As far as State or Federal assistance goes, yes I've scoured just about every website and talked to as many people as I can about grants and loans. The Victorian Government has everything when it comes to that, and I applaud them, because its a wonderful scheme and they are taking game development by the balls. If South Australia even decides to get in that game, then we're going to be playing catch up for years.

One thing that is possible is getting free PS2/GC/XBox kits, as long as the developers meet the criteria for getting accepted, it seems the Government will pay for the cost of the licence.

So as far as getting support goes, I've exhausted pretty much every avenue I can think of, save moving to Melbourne. And that's not going to happen. However, I'm stout as an indie, and know that ultimately, we (the team) will be much better off for working up our own profitability than relying on a grant.

So, viva la indie!

Cheers,
Paul.

[Reactor]

I'm currently in the middle of full time (indie) game development, thanks to the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme (NEIS).

See here-
http://www.missionaustralia.com.au/cm/Resources/neis/index.html
It's for unemployed only (both my brother and I were that at the time we came up with the bright idea to go for it)

We created a business plan (one of the tasks you have to complete) and submitted it, and amazingly, we are now being funded by the government to make games for a year. If you're unemployed, this really is the best way to go, assuming you can put together a sturdy business plan, and don't mind working on a minimum wage (dole payments) for your initial development. For us, it's been an amazing opportunity, and we've learned a great deal about development which, even if the business fails, will work wonders for the two of us later on down the track.

In a few weeks we should know if the trouble has been worth it!

[cliffski]

peter molyneux expresses better than me, what in my regard is the most important and rewarding issue of being 'indie':

"You know, I can think of something and make it real. How cool is that?"


Its not so simple for peter these days. Being a big dev studio means a lot of compromise. I'm sure its not Peters express wish that The mobile phones used in his next game are 'sponsored by phone company x' or that the cars are sponsored by car company y.
The moment you need publisher fuinding to make your game, any idea of creative control is thrown out the window. Unless you are 100% self-financed (the best way) then you are partly making someone elses game.

[Anthony Flack]

Yep. But then, tight budgets and lack of staff force you to compromise your vision, too.

[Diodor Bitan]

Original post by cliffski
The moment you need publisher fuinding to make your game, any idea of creative control is thrown out the window. Unless you are 100% self-financed (the best way) then you are partly making someone elses game.

I think the compromise is required even simply due to the amount of invested money. If a game should bring back $10M, that puts a lot of constraints on what that game can be like, whoever has to pay for it. One can definitely take more risks with $10K games.

Original quote by Peter Molyneux
"You know, I can think of something and make it real. How cool is that?"

Given the pharaonic context of Black and White, I think that quote translates as "You know, whatever designers' wet dream I may have, I can make it real. How cool is that?"

I have to agree, it's pretty cool :)