Interesting Issue: coverage of "indie" games

[terin]

I recently had a chat with an owner of a fast-growing site. They have given good coverage of "indie" games before this but have severely cut back.

The reason is simple: Nobody will syndicate their coverage of indie games. No matter how hard they try places like Blues News will not re-post the reviews. (they did, however, mention that some of the products I represented somehow got coverage, thoug honestly I dont really know why either, for instance: Void War.)

Its an interesting issue, I would love to get it solved... but frankly there doesn't seem to be any immediate solution. Just thought you'd like to know why it sometimes seems like an uphill battle :-)

-Joe

[dan]

Think it depends on the game. When we published a few screen shots in a preview at a popular site, Blue's News and other sites covered and linked to it.

For classic casual games (you know, puzzle & solitaire & lite arcade), I don't think you'll get much coverage. But then, I doubt that it would help all that much.

[PoV]

Ya never know. You might catch that closet Bejeweled player amongst the 3D shooters and RTS's. :D

[cyrus_zuo]

I think I could probably get into this at length...but I won't.

I will say that marketing and getting information out to the public is always a challenge and that is especially the case for indie games. I think few people realize just how big the challenge is that confronts them as they finish their game. At the same time I think it is getting easier to get the word out and if a portal is used then the self-marketing thing becomes somewhat moot.

Notably it has been over a year since Blues News posted anything from Game Tunnel, they posted a link when we did our Anito review, but have not posted any of the stories we sent them.

[whisperstorm]

As I read this I was struck with something. Notice how folks are "Rip, Mix, Burn" ing music, and that homemade movies like Star Wars Revelations (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/0022200&from=rss) are starting to grow in popularity. Folks are taking music, video, and other media and "remixing" it. What I wonder is will there ever be an "iGame" for gaming? Download your 100 favorite indie games to your pocket - like you do music. It seems like with tools like GarageBand - it is making creating your own songs and video pretty easy. I wonder if there will be a similar kind of tool for gaming.

The reason why I'm talking about this is all of us are creating games from scratch more or less, and its like the early days of music. If some smart individual came up with an authoring tool that made making games as easly as it is to remix some music - perhaps there's money to be made there.

I know there are "game makers" that allow you to put stuff together in a crude way, but I mean something more like the Dungeon Siege level editor, that auto generates terrain, etc. etc. Like "painting" a game.

Is there any money in tools?

[svero]

The question I've always had in this regard is what the decision making process is primarily motivated by. I wonder if commercial advertisers complain about indie content. Something along the lines of ... Hey I'm spending x dollars a month on advertising campaigns for shooterx and you're giving free space to platypus and crimsonland promos and those guys don't advertise at all. You want to feature something, feature my game or I'll move the bucks elsewhere. Or alternately it may be a perception of interest. Editors might simply feel that their audience is better served (and then more likely to continue readership) if they focus on things like half life 3 previews etc...

[tentons]

Editors might simply feel that their audience is better served (and then more likely to continue readership) if they focus on things like half life 3 previews etc...
I think that's probably the case. Most indie games aren't in the same league, and it's probably a fact that most of their readership won't be interested unless it looks as good as a AAA CDROM title.

So, I guess our work is cut out for us. Increase production values to that level if we want their attention. :)

[Reactor]

You have to pick your websites carefully... we were all over Gamershell when we first released, but on Blues we received the teeniest of links, almost hidden in a pile of other useless links.

[svero]

I think that's probably the case. Most indie games aren't in the same league, and it's probably a fact that most of their readership won't be interested unless it looks as good as a AAA CDROM title.

So, I guess our work is cut out for us. Increase production values to that level if we want their attention. :)

Well see.. I thought maybe that was the whole story UNTIL the days of Doom etc... when indie games were actually beyond the current retail quality in some respects. A lot of mags dropped their shareware/indie content back then. The stopped covering stuff by 3drealms and Id etc.. There were a lot of mags that started up the top 10 shareware games and so on and then killed those columns. Maybe there just werent enough high quality titles to keep those columns going, but it seems that those decisions were not entirely motivated by production value.

[Chris Evans]

You want to feature something, feature my game or I'll move the bucks elsewhere. Or alternately it may be a perception of interest. Editors might simply feel that their audience is better served (and then more likely to continue readership) if they focus on things like half life 3 previews etc...

This is something I've been thinking about for awhile.

I've known a few of the writers who have passed through major publications such as Gamespot, IGN, Gamefan, and etc. They were not professional journalist, most were 17 -28 year old videogame fanboys who were good/decent writers.

Most of them are jaded and graphics obsessed and fully enjoy the graphics arms race the console makers are involved in. They love all the goodies these big companies send them. In some cases, they're flown to the publisher's studio (all expenses paid) and have lavish parties thrown for them.

These writers get pampered and feel a degree of prestige for covering these big budgeted games. In comparison covering an Indie game for them is the equivalent of doing community service after a DUI or working the soup kitchen. There's not much glory in it and some consider it beneath them. Take this example:

A game writer has one preview slot open for the next issue and has two games sitting on his desk.

Game A is in a nice little folder accompanied by a little cheat sheet. It's made by a small unknown company and while it doesn't have the best graphics it does have an interesting concept.
Game B is in a full color sleeve and notebook. It also came with a stuffed animal and t-shirt. There's also an invitation for the writer to check out the game first hand at the studio all expenses paid. The game itself has good graphics but the concept is very derivative.

9 times out of 10 Game B will be covered over Game A. The advertising departments are usually kept separate from the editors at these major publications, but the game publishers still find MANY other ways to "soft" bribe the writers. Whether the writers will admit it or not, it does have an affect on them.

With all of that said, there's not enough good Indie games for the major publications to write about them in their regular preview/review space on a consistent basis. But I definitely think it's feasible for them to do a little mini-monthly roundup of maybe about 2-3 Indie games. Even more so for the online media sites.

I understand if sites will only write about games which meet a certain level of quality, but what annoys me is how some sites have outright policies that forbid coverage of Independent games. If a game is good it shouldn't matter if it's Independent or not.

Finally another little dirty secret (or not so secret) is that many game writers have aspirations of becoming game developers themselves. I can name several writers who ended up becoming producers or designers at big name companies they did coverage for. Many of these writers see Indie games as just "resume builders" for people who are trying to get jobs at the same big companies. Like a Digipen class project or something similar.

However, I think strides are being made. GameTunnel got on G4TV recently and Greg at DIY did an Indie feature for a major gaming magazine. The big media outlets are starting to stick their toes in the Indie waters. If the Indie scene can start cranking out more good games that also appeal to hardcore gamers then we might see a wider recognition of the Indie gaming culture.

[Gmicek]

However, I think strides are being made. GameTunnel got on G4TV recently and Greg at DIY did an Indie feature for a major gaming magazine. The big media outlets are starting to stick their toes in the Indie waters. If the Indie scene can start cranking out more good games that also appeal to hardcore gamers then we might see a wider recognition of the Indie gaming culture.

4 months in a row in Computer Games Magazine, so it's going well :) New issue is out, in it I feature Creatrix, Lux, Star Chamber, and Supremacy.

But back to the issue at hand. I used to get upset that the major gaming sites didn't cover indie games, but now I don't blame them. Most gamers that go to Gamespot and GameSpy (for example) don't want to read about 90% of the indie games out there. There was an interesting discussion at GDC with some gaming journalists about some of the roles and responsibilities of game journalists. There was some guys representing some pretty big print mags and online publications and I finally realized that it really does come down to economics. Putting up coverage of a game on a website isn't free, you have to pay the writer to put the work together, the editor to get it all in line, and it's using up space that may otherwise be used on a product that will driver more readers. As nice as it would be to see Indie Game X on the front page of GameSpot, it's just not going to happen because it's not economically feasable for them.

It's even worse for the print mags. This months issue of Computer Games Magazine, for example, has 100 pages. 24 pages are advertisements, and 2 are focused on nothing but indie games. Obviously printing a magazine costs a pretty penny, and it's a decent paying gig for me. Will they recoup the costs of the articles? It's doubtful since I don't see masses of people subscribing to the magazine just because of the indie games coverage.

Anyway, concerning the link sites like Voodoo and Blues. I've also noticed that they link stories concerning more hardcore games, but rarely link casual titles. Whenever they've linked casual games we've reviewed we get about 1/5th of the traffic than the more hardcore titles, so I can't blame them for not linking anymore in those cases.

[Anthony Flack]

Darwinia has gotten plenty of exposure, including some fairly hefty print coverage.

[dogbert]

Darwinia has gotten plenty of exposure, including some fairly hefty print coverage.

Darwinia is a very "arty" looking game like Rez, and the gaming press love the story of the guys behind the game.

It's also a very good game that's very different in feel/quality to a lot of indie games.

[Anthony Flack]

Of course, of course. But that's the point, isn't it? No magazine is going to want to feature games where the reader will look at the screenshots and go "what the hell kind of crap do you call this?" even if the game itself is fun and interesting. Darwinia demonstrates that an indie game can get plenty of magazine coverage if it's the sort of game their readers would go for.

[dogbert]

Darwinia demonstrates that an indie game can get plenty of magazine coverage if it's the sort of game their readers would go for.

Just quoting this to ram the point home.

[cyrus_zuo]

Putting up coverage of a game on a website isn't free, you have to pay the writer to put the work together, the editor to get it all in line, and it's using up space that may otherwise be used on a product that will driver more readers. As nice as it would be to see Indie Game X on the front page of GameSpot, it's just not going to happen because it's not economically feasable for them.

Some of this is an issue that I beat to death (finances of running a review website covering indie games) so I'll let it go, but I wanted to bring up another piece of the 'economically feasable' puzzle.

One thing I've wondered is how to make Indie games exciting to people. Lots of traffic depends on the excitement factor, the emotional connection with people. Looking at screens of Airstrike just doesn't make most people excited. I think to build up the interest in the games it will continue to take time, as well as finding some hooks that get people excited for more. Excited people = interest = coverage. People were excited about Void War...I talked to mainstream 'only' people who had played it...I've always wondered what was done right there and how it could be duplicated.

[Sparky]

We haven't had any problem getting web or print coverage, either (the problem is getting the f&%*$n' game done). Edit: That sounded kinda snotty. :eek: What I'm trying to say is -- indies can get coverage. If you aren't getting any, you may need to address some things:

a) is your game really different enough to interest their readers? Do you have an angle, or is it just "Bejeweled, but with marshmallows"? If it's just another clone, they probably aren't going to use up precious page space for that. It's harsh, but true.

b) are you actively sending them press releases and review copies? When writers contact you, do you respond right away? Do you send them any requested screenshots, developer bios, etc., as soon as humanly possible? Magazines have tight deadlines. If you make it hard for them to write about you, why should they bother?

c) do you read the game sites and subscribe to the magazines that you want to write about you? You need to know what kind of stuff they're covering. When they do write about indies, do you email the editor and say "thanks, let's see some more of this"? They LOVE to get feedback, and it will help get more indie coverage in the future.

[vjvj]

Darwinia has gotten plenty of exposure, including some fairly hefty print coverage.

Darwinia (and Uplink) are probably bad examples to use here. As dogbert said, a lot of the admiration for Introversion comes from the story of the "guys behind the games".

Their first (AFAIK) press coverage was the Uplink article in Develop (the UK equivalent of Game Developer magazine here in the States). I'm sure much of the sentiment towards Introversion stemmed from that article, and I wouldn't be surprised if the eventual UK PC Gamer coverage was a combination of the Develop exposure and maybe a little palm greasing.

Chris Evans' post is right on track IMHO. Press coverage in the game industry is, generally speaking, massively political. I know several writers and ex-writers from the likes of IGN/Gamefan/etc. and they will tell you the same thing.

I would say the first steps towards getting more coverage are a) raising the production value of your title and b) getting drunk at more parties.

[Gmicek]

"Bejeweled, but with marshmallows"?

Brilliant!

Their first (AFAIK) press coverage was the Uplink article in Develop (the UK equivalent of Game Developer magazine here in the States). I'm sure much of the sentiment towards Introversion stemmed from that article, and I wouldn't be surprised if the eventual UK PC Gamer coverage was a combination of the Develop exposure and maybe a little palm greasing.

Uplink had already been out for quite some time at that point. Up to then they were extremely active in promoting the game, and had done an excellent job at attracting a core audience due to the fact that the game was pretty unique. They also did a great job at hiding the fact that they were indie. It's only now, with Darwinia, that they're to a point where they have the luxury of ignoring peoples emails concerning anything and everything. Not that I'm bitter :D

[Anthony Flack]

I wouldn't be surprised if the eventual UK PC Gamer coverage was a combination of the Develop exposure and maybe a little palm greasing.

Well, I did mention this somewhere else, and Kieron Gillen (author of the Darwinia piece unless I'm very much mistaken) replied, basically, that they got in touch and he liked the game and wanted to do an article about it and did, and it's as simple as that.


Darwinia (and Uplink) are probably bad examples to use here.

Not at all. I'm not trying to argue that indie games generally get plenty of mainstream press. Of course they don't. What I'm saying is, there are exceptions. So don't be too quick to blame it on pure anti-indie prejudice.

We haven't had any problem getting web or print coverage, either (the problem is getting the f&%*$n' game done).

Amen to that! (how's it going, by the way?)
Heck, I had my work featured in a freakin' book, but it hasn't helped me get the game finished any faster... actually I've tried to keep things as low-key as possible so far. People can be so impatient...

[Yarlen]

As a former member of the media I think I can safely say that coverage boils down primarily to audience. Most of the major gaming sites' readers simply don't care about most indie-games. Their readers are after the AAA titles with the uber-graphics, the deep, involving gameplay, etc. To this point, it makes no sense for the gaming sites who have such readers to provide coverage to indies.

Now, there are exceptions to this. If you can get someone at one of these sites to play your game (and they like it), they will often mention it. You may not get a big blurb, but you'll get something. If the site provides demo downloads it's even better since they may decide to host your game and that could translate into sales, word of mouth advertising, etc. Basically this all comes down to a site-by-site basis. ;)

[Sparky]

...I wouldn't be surprised if the eventual UK PC Gamer coverage was a combination of the Develop exposure and maybe a little palm greasing.Well, we're getting an interview and (so they've told me) a pic of our giant robot spread across two pages (!) in the May issue of UK PC Gamer, and I've never even met any of their staff, nor have I "greased" any palms. I don't even know what the US-UK grease exchange rate is. In fact, we have barely enough grease to keep our wheel bearings rolling and our potato pancakes fried.

PS: Anthony, I mentioned Platypus in a little "What games are you playing?" developer-interview thing they put in the back of UK PC Gamer -- I think it should be in the June issue.

[electronicStar]

In france, Darwinia got a full page review in the one PC-gaming magazine that is outrageously dominating the market (of PC games magazine), this magazine even features advertisement for shampoo and big cosmetic companies (aimed at teenagers) and I was surprised an indie could get any space in such an highly competitive environment.
Now I wouldn't be surprised if the fact that Darwinia had already been featured in a big magazine in the USA wasn't a factor, most of the magazines around the world are tempted to copy whatever news they can find in PC magazine.
I think it's a bit normal that indie games don't appear in magazines and big website which are primarily aimed at AAA titles and innovation. Most of the indie games are either ultra casual (and not made for the hardcore players) or crap. The few good ones don't really fit next to the hyped, big-budgeted titles usually featured in these magazines.

[KNau]

As usual it seems I'm the one voice of dissent

How many people think all the coverage of Darwinia has translated directly into sales? Remember, Pompom's games got excellent reviews in PCGamer but that didn't directly result in a massive surge of customers (at least I recall a post of his to that effect). Reviewers couldn't stop drooling about Gish and Wik and gave both far more than their share of ink - and yet I'm positive Luxor outsells them by a fair margin.

Not all marketing is created equal. Why lament the state of indie coverage when there isn't much evidence to show that mainstream coverage is really worth chasing? Would a cover-spread of Gish on PC Gamer really make all the difference? I doubt it, since in our business it still comes down to the demo, regardless of positive reviews.

I'm sure mainstream attention can't hurt sales (although it would increase instances of piracy so maybe I'm wrong there) but it wouldn't be worth more than passing attention to court the editors of major gaming magazines and sites unless you a. sell retail and b. have a game that suits their non-casual market.

[Yarlen]

That's true, being at retail and matching their market is key.

[vjvj]

Not at all. I'm not trying to argue that indie games generally get plenty of mainstream press. Of course they don't. What I'm saying is, there are exceptions. So don't be too quick to blame it on pure anti-indie prejudice.

Right. I guess that, in a backwards sort of way, I'm agreeing with you on this. I don't believe there is any great amount of anti-indie prejudice, either. I think Introversion titles are a bad example in the sense that there is no consistent step by step process to follow to receive the same amount of coverage that they did. It sounded like more of a Right Place at the Right Time type of thing.

It's funny, I read Sparky's response and quickly remembered that PC Gamer US actually did a small blurb on my last indie title as well. Perhaps PC Gamer is the exception here? :D At any rate, my position still stands that schmoozing is where a hell of a lot of work gets done in this arena...

[Sparky]

It's funny, I read Sparky's response and quickly remembered that PC Gamer US actually did a small blurb on my last indie title as well. Perhaps PC Gamer is the exception here?Nah...Computer Gaming World (http://cgw.1up.com)covers some indie games, too, but Computer Games Magazine (http://www.cgonline.com) is the most indie-friendly.

[cyrus_zuo]

I believe there is a lot to be gained from the indie moniker. With each game released currently you have to drum up a customer base unless the game you are making appeals to customer base that liked your last game. In being grouped as something 'indie' or whatever it gives people something they can connect to. They can look for indie games expecting something from them, be it innovation or old-school gaming or whatever they find in them.

Certainly it isn't anything that hasn't been stated before, but from a marketing standpoint I think there are more pluses than minuses in being connected to a group or movement. It gives the public something to feel comfortable about and to look for. Otherwise you are generating interest on a game by game basis, which requires more work (and of course offers bigger rewards if you are successful).

[GBGames]

Darwinia was covered in a recent issue of PC Gamer. The story there was mainly: "Man, the game's done, but it is tough making sales." I wasn't impressed with that story.

And I got responses to my emails promptly, but then again I am reviewing the game at the moment. B-)

PC Gamer covers a few indie games such as Spiderweb Software's offerings. Naturally when compared to games like Homeworld 2 and Black and White 2, indie titles tend to look unimpressive. Even a game that receives a good rating is usually stuck in a half-page review with one or two screenshots.

[Anthony Flack]

I mentioned Platypus in a little "What games are you playing?" developer-interview thing

Really? You've been playing it? That always makes me happy. The whole idea that you can take something out of your imagination, package it up and create an experience for someone else across the other side of the world seems like such a privilege. And to think that some people will get right into it too; it's quite amazing really. That's the real magic in this business, eh?

I wonder how many people have seen that little spaceship I casually thumbed out one day... damn, it's been far too long since I released anything.


How many people think all the coverage of Darwinia has translated directly into sales?

Well, I can't imagine that it's lost them any sales. Sure, if you look at it that way, I expect you're still better off making the next casual game hit than you are making a game that the magazines would give coverage to. But hey, they wanted to make Darwinia, and so they did. Same goes for Gish, and Wik, and the rest. They might not be the most profitable games, but that's not the only way to assess something's value.

[KNau]

They might not be the most profitable games, but that's not the only way to assess something's value.
If you're in business it is - but that topic has been done to death.

While I'm sure the gang at Reflexive and Chronic Logic were doing their best to fulfill their creative impulses I wouldn't have any delusions about the primary motivation for both companies. They want money, as much as possible.

I agree that the amount of coverage they received wouldn't have hurt sales but it didn't seem to help much either. It's a time vs. reward scenario - if they had to spend a lot of time pushing and lobbying for coverage then they probably came up even or at a loss compared to if they had put that time towards another game or more focused marketing. If the coverage just naturally happened then it's all gravy :)

I'm not saying don't try to get mainstream coverage. I'm saying for the typical indie the rewards don't appear to be there to give mainstream sites and magazines more than passing attention.

[Coyote]

I'm not saying don't try to get mainstream coverage. I'm saying for the typical indie the rewards don't appear to be there to give mainstream sites and magazines more than passing attention.
As an individual, trying to sell a game RIGHT NOW- maybe not.

As a collective group - yes, it is important.

I'm an old-school hardcore gamer. When I started Void War in December of 2002 - mainly just an exercise to keep my game development skills sharp, in case I decided to go back into game development as a profession - I had NO idea that an independent game development community even existed. Since the heyday of Doom and Duke Nukem and Quake, I'd heard nary a peep from the 'shareware' game industry except for Bejeweled (and that partly because it had received mainstream coverage in Computer Gaming World). I'd heard of the IGF, and seen the games there a couple of times when I'd visited in GDC, but my attitude was largely that it was a bone thrown to students and wannabes and it was little more than a venue for talented kids to find a job in the "big leagues."

It took a lot of hunting to find what quality "indie" games were out there. My initial forays revealed a bunch of cheap crap that made me perhaps a little overconfident in my own abilities. Now - the sad part was that I was actually HUNTING specifically for independent, shareware games --- and I had no idea where to look.

As a collective group, we need to increase the exposure of our little "counterculture" or whatever we can term it. "Alternative Gaming?" The movie industry has Sundance, which has gained enough media exposure to help a lot of these movies gain some level of commercial viability (even if only after they are released on DVD).

[Anthony Flack]

If you're in business it is - but that topic has been done to death.

Yes, you're right, it has. Suffice to say, I don't believe it's ever that simple, even when looking from a purely business perspective (a product that builds prestige also has value, for example). And beyond that, there are of course many, many people who view their businesses as more than simple money making engines. But that's a discussion that's gone nowhere far too many times now, so, yeah. Enough.