New article posted to GT: "Sustaining Independence"

[Fost]

*For those of you offended by the term "hobbyist,"

Actually, I don't think anyone is really offended by it - we are just having a laugh at ourselves. I think it came up because of Phil S's blog, but you have to read that thoroughly to understand what he means, and, if I understood him correctly, I don't mind. I'll use my own game as an example - Starscape's front end, and general 'ergonomics' are far from where I'd like them to be. In fact, compare them to any recent, high profile casual game, and the Starscape front end is a bit of an embarrasment. Needing to compromise on one thing to give yourself time to make something else is not really a good excuse to your customers. Casual gamer devs on the other hand limit the scope of their games so they can make every aspect of them perfect - and that's being professional.

[Dan MacDonald]

Very true, which is why I stated that the correlation did not imply causation.

If you look at the fulltime indie game developers we had back in the dexterity days 4-5 years ago that posted on the forums their pretty much the same guys who post here now. Minus a few.

Retro64, svero, goodsol, james c. smith, patrox, etc. Other then emmanuels overnight breakout success and subsequent acquisition why haven't we had any significant numbers of others that have achieved the same level of sustainability ? The thing is, in order to get that long term sustainability you need to find that place where you enjoy your work you enjoy what you create and you have enough critical mass to be profitable doing it. That takes time, it also takes an emphasis on becoming better at the craft of making games and running your own business. Once a developer hits that target, find the right combination of things that is sustainable they can start to be profitable. It's different for everyone, but I guarantee you it doesn't start with trying to make a fast buck, it has to come from something more substantial. If you are just in it for the buck you'll miss that spot where you find your sustainability. Finding that spot means you start with your emphasis on game design and development and work it ever so slightly towards profitability.

People who have done this:
Retro64 - Started with multiplayer online action games followed his retro gameplay passion to indie stardom.

Goodsol - Like shorthike, started with a game he liked and stuck with it for a very long time. Nothing says sustainability like a 10 year track record. Who knew there were so many people out there that weren't satisified with the free solitare that came with windows?

Positech - Made games he liked for fun, and a little profit, ended up making exactly what he enjoyed and ended up with enough revenue to sustain him full time.

PuppyGames - Started full time working on his dream game, burned a ton of money had poor sales. Instead of giving up or going casual he just worked his game design preferences gradually towards games that resonated with customers. Give him one or two more games and I think he will be sustainable full time doing exactly what he likes.

Blitwise Has always made games only for passion, seems people are passionate about the same things he is. He's full time supports a wife and kids, mortgage etc.

MountainKing Always does whatever he wants, the father of Raptor (one of my all time classics) as well as galactix, demonstar and others. Fulltime indie (maybe chronically so at this point)

ShortHike Back in the dexterity days when people were focusing on making 10k a month from logic games, Kai was making his 3d space station simulation. He never seemed to give a crap about conventional wisdom. He ended up liking his game so much he based his whole business around that one title and continues to support it full time today. (with 1 or two employees now I believe).

WinterWolves Took his sim games to the next level, starting with soccer manager and going on to do boxing manager and various other sim/strategy games. Now doing quite well as a full time indie making exactly what he wants.

Moonpod From day one investing in making great games they were interested in and have never looked back. Maybe not living rockstar lifestyles but they get to pursue their passion on a daily basis, hard to ask for much more.

[EDIT]
.... see this is why I dont put names of people in the articles themselves.. people always feel left out. I'm not trying to make a complete list just some that come to mind.

Hamumu Making dumb games since 1809 and still loving it.

[/EDIT]


these are just ones i'm more personally familiar with.. there's lots more pompom, runescape, 21-6, those soldat guys.. all who do whatever they want and seem to be having financial success and sustainability doing it.

Now for the success stories for those who focused on business values from day 1

Retro64 ok ok so he's in both categories, he likes his games, they sell well on his site, they sell well on portals. Definitely found a sustainable sweetspot.

funpause (now bigfish) Created a few lackluster games then hit it big with faries and atlantis. Acquired by bigfish, now working on a game that interests him personally. Will it work out and be sustainable? who knows.. it very well might.

Sprout games though he no longer posts here, started with a business perspective from day 1 and worked his way up and was acquired by popcap. Now the creative director at popcap.

[EDIT]
goodsol while he may classify himself in this camp, he was making downloadable games before there really was a known lucrative market or much of anything else. His focus on business and marketing has enabled his business to grow steadily over the years. I still maintain that it was his interest in solitare (based on things he's said) that got him started not the promise of big revenue streams.
[/EDIT]

The point I'm trying to make, is that there are a lot more guys who have found a way to be full time indies following their own preferences and passion for game development then there are guys who started out to create profitable game businesses.

[arcadetown]

I find this whole "indieness" thing to be absolute rubbish. A good game is a good game. Users are not blind, they like what they like. Sure great formula games can do well but we've also seen lots of non-forumla games do well. Should I make games that I like but know users will not? If you answered yes then go to the back of the line and be sure not to quit your day job.

Almost unanimously everyone here says they want to quit their day job and be a "true" indie, but they always find crazy reasons why not to. I know I used to. The answer is your inventing reasons why not, instead of inventing a means and reason why to.

btw - Funny we're never mentioned there. Guess uber popular freeware games that are totally inventive such as The Black Knight don't count

[soniCron]

Dan: I think Brian should also go under the list of people who focused on business. He's clearly not just pandering to his own self-interested desires.

[Mike Boeh]

What about Sandlot? Business
Hipsoft? Business
Arcadelab? Business (passion too)
Puzzle Labs?
Kraisoft?


There are a ton of successful (smaller) developers who focus on business first, maybe you're more inclined to make friends with "hobby" developers?

[Dan MacDonald]

I just removed him from the list, while he crossed my mind initially I decided not to include him for the same reasons I didn't include game tunnel or reflexive. Their primary business is not the creation of games, which is what Im trying to talk about. I don't have nearly the same level of visiblity into the distribution / portal business so I don't feel really qualified to make any statements about it.

The purpose of the above list is not to list who's indie and who's not. The intent in posting a list of references is to show that there appear to be a lot of people who invested in doing what they wanted to do and ended up having a business that could sustain them full time (and independant of any other controlling influence). It also shows some examples of what happens when you focus on creating a profitable game business first. You end up being acquired.

I would like to point out, that this is not a proof of my way of thinking, even if the examples were clearly stacked in a way that opposed my way of thinking, I would still hold it to be true because my convictions are made from my own experience not the experience I observe others to have.

[soniCron]

...I would still hold it to be true because my convictions are made from my own experience not the experience I observe others to have.

I didn't realize you were developing your own games full-time?

[Fost]

I find this whole "indieness" thing to be absolute rubbish.

Yeah, I don't like to ever sound like I'm bashing casual games because as you say - a good game is a good game (Chuzzle being a great favourite of mine and most definitely casual!), but I do find the distinction between 'indie' and 'casual' a useful one to make - the types of games in both categories really require a sightly different approach, to development certainly, but also to marketing and selling. There's lots shared between the two, but I find particularly on these forums, that there's a duality in thread replies - one set from indie devs and one set from casual devs. Take the recent Rage of Magic II announcement - there were calls to make it work with the mouse there - even to change the gameplay so it would work. I bet people who take the 'indie' approach, were (like me) thinking 'no!!!!!' -it would ruin a classic gameplay style, and I'm really thinking that game might be great if they get that traditional golden axe style play spot on. Casual devs were all probably thinking 'hmm, looks nice, but how could it be changed so a 50 year old with low experience of arcade style gameplay can slip into playing it easily'. Now, to each side, it might seem like other other is insane to think that way, but it's really just a different approach and no way is right or wrong.

Should I make games that I like but know users will not? If you answered yes then go to the back of the line and be sure not to quit your day job.

In reality, that situation is unlikely to occur, unless you are some kind of freak. Making a game you yourself like is a valid technique that I think has lost favour with developers from all walks of life. Surely if you like something, then someone else out there also will like it? How about just doing something a certain way because you feel that it's right and you like it that way.

Ok, I like subtitles black and white French movies, and that puts me in a very small minority in the UK - hopefully you can see the link in that statement; yes, there's a lot to be said for finding a bigger target audience, but surely you can't let money rule everything?

At the end, I don't think anyone is doing that. Like you say - there's good games and bad games, casual or indie makes no difference to that.

[Dan MacDonald]

Well I don't find much value in listing developers, It was brought to my attention that it would help if I provided some examples. As I said I think the idea stands on its own, it doesn't really require long comparisons of various developers to test weather it's valid or not. If you have a rational mind then you should be able to evaluate it based on your own experience as a human being, and if you've been doing the indie thing very long you can apply your own experience as an indie developer.

I've only met the hipsoft guys a few times, but they are an example of the type of people who tend to do well in the casual games business. They aren't constrained with the same resource problems that most solo developers are. They started as a team with enough money (they founded monolith) and experience to bring to market games that were industry quality in all areas of development. (Design/content/programming). I imagine that they probably have a few developers working for them now that do all the dirty work and the founders are there purely to do planning and set direction. (I could be wrong but this is typically how profit oriented businesses work.) This is a good way to go if you want to run a business, but if you want to continue to make games, if creating them is your passion then you have to come at it differently.

Anyway, if other people find value tallying up the list of those who followed their own preferences in game development and those who set out to make profitable game businesses, go ahead. I don't see much continued value from it other then making people upset and stepping on peoples toes. If you can't see any value to what im saying, even an exhaustive list of developers and their histories isn't likely to convince you. It either makes sense to you or it doesn't.

[soniCron]

The value of the list is in recognizing how few of the examples illustrate your point as a contention of success. In fact, it suggests that taking a business-like approach to game development more often leads to sustained existence, with a notable exception of the few early birds who captured tiny, niche markets before they closed or dried up.

The truth of the matter is evident in the sheer number of failures in this industry as a whole, regardless of approach. The only constant found in all of the successful developers is excellence, and excellence alone. From this we can infer that there is a safe approach (business), a dangerous approach (hobby), and the only path that offers sustained success (excellence). How you get there is ancillary to how well you get there.

[Dan MacDonald]

Which comes again to my point, excellence in all three areas (Programming - Content - Design) takes time. You can compress time if you have capitol. If you don't have capitol you have to take your time. So you need to find something that will sustain you for that long period of time. I've found that only a passion for the activity you are performing and the game experience that you are creating is enough to sustain you over that long period of time.

Unfortunatly if you accept capitol to accelerate your business you'll find you have a very hard time remaining independant. Which leads to the conclusion of my article...

An independent developer that wishes to sustain their independence must pursue their own interests in game design and development and give them preeminence over their interests in business and profit.

[papillon]

I accept the Capitol! It shall be mine!



(Sorry, sorry, old English class habits coming to the fore. Accepting capital threatens your ability to be independent.)

[Dan MacDonald]

Oh boy, dyslexia strikes again. You can posture all you want with your big ideas but all it takes is someone to correct your spelling to cut you down to size . (It's a good thing) I'll leave the mistake there for the sake of context.

[arcadetown]

My point isn't I or someone else should be on the list, just it's way too narrowly defined to fit your argument. Open the eyes and viola there's lots of guys doing well in an "indie" kind of way. One example, xgenstudios.com with Motherlode, Stick Arena, Fishy, etc. Very innovative! But instead people want to find reasons to be negative and that nobody does well following their own path. False!

Shoot I've followed my own path and done well. But guess personally selling 3000 units of our BLOX series and about 1500 more through partners doesn't count as I don't fit this narrowly defined "indie". And Midnight Strike, The Black Knight, Realspace series, Dashing Dan's Date-o-Rama, and many others don't count either. Oh and of course little tiny never used sites like ArcadeTown or HeavyGames...

[Dan MacDonald]

I was playing stick arena just this week, I love all their stuff. It's too bad it seems like everyone else who ends up capitAlizing on their work. I relaly like their design sensibilities.

[arcadetown]

Fishy / Feeding Frenzy, very negative way to see it. I'd bet they're doing well enough that barely matters. Want few more samples of innovative guys taking risks and getting rewarded?

Newgrounds/Behemoth - Alien Hominid / DanNMe / etc
MoFunZone - Sinjid series / etc
Miniclip - virtually invented adver games

Point is I've seen lots of guys (and yes gals) do well following their passion in an "indie" kind of way. Take blinders off. Life is good. Tons of innovation and appropriate rewards like Cute Knight, Aveyond, and Masters of Defense just recently. Indie crisis = none.

To all the consistent nay sayers, STOP SEEING THE WORLD NEGATIVELY! You're only hurting yourself.

[cliffski]

I think the problem is, there are actually two groups of people on these forums, there are the people making the more traditional casual games, in the popcap style, and then there is everyone else.
Both sides occasionally get on each others nerves, and we argue a lot because advice thats good for one lot is just terrible for the other, and vice versa. Yes there is crossover, but in general this is true.
I'm almost thinking that as well as a forum for the casual games discussion, you almost need a forum for the non-casual ones. There is just so much about the business, game design, production values, feature lists, marketing etc, that is different between the two groups.
I have good results from both adwords, and political blog advertising, but this opinion and information is useless to someone making a match 3. A discussion about whether or not players can cope with the right mouse button is useless for people making Space Station Manager, an RPG or Democracy. I dont mean useless as in just not helpful, it can actually be dangerous, as any advice given from one group to the other can be just wrong.
Maybe if there was a separate forum there would be less arguments, because I really think there are two audiences here.

[Sharpfish]

Maybe if there was a separate forum there would be less arguments, because I really think there are two audiences here.

That was mentioned in the past I think? I still agree it is a good idea. One "general" forum and two distinct forums for discussing games as pertaining to general indiegames (quality and usability still being a byword) and the other for.. well... I don't know, I don't think "casual" is still the correct word because that makes it black and white.

I agree there are casual games that are targeting the very tops of portals (ala popcap) that are different to every other game. That includes rts, political sims, shootemups and.. crucially "different" kinds of games that ARE intended to be played (in smaller numbers) by casual players.

The points you make about certain discussion being dangerous are true I think. Some we can learn from (as I have said before) "take what is good and use it on your hardcore game" but some is misleading. For example: If you are making a game that will never be played by a typical casual player, reading some of the advice around here could delay the release of your game while you try to work in some streamlining to avoid using the r/m button or the keyboard, maybe you end up changing (compromising) the design of your game to fit into the perfect area of the market your game doesn't really belong!

If there is seperate forum, however it ended up, it should have plenty of thought and feedback from the users (us) before being put into operation. The casual game forum never really took off because everyone was still on every other part of the board and importantly because the general forum still talked about casual games. If you have a specific forum for one type then you need one for the other or else everyone just posts where the traffic is.

I think possibly MORE than just a sub-forum is needed but two seperate links from the frontpage to "strictly business and casual game forum" (how to make the most polished, accessible and portal friendly games) and "Non casual game and not so business orientated forum" (how to make the kinds of games not normally played by typical casual players but doing them well).

There is cross over, but I think it would help stop all the arguing. Same goes for press release and feedback - sub forums under the above main forums. Then if someone posts a match3 for feedback *ALL* of the contributors are there (or should be there) on the understanding it is a business and casual game place not a mix. If you don't like it then keep quiet and don't post "clone" after every obvious target.

Likewise on the other forum, people can post about RPGs, RTSs and whatever without getting the same stuff repeated at them "use a single mouse button" "needs industry standard gfx to compete" "you are doomed to failure with a game that is not going to work on portals".

I think it's a great idea. I know people will post after these posts and say where they can see problems, but the problems are already here. There would be no more "excuses" for derailing threads (especially feedback and release ones) because you are there because you ARE that kind of dev.

Personally I would be on BOTH forums (so it's still not hard to treat indiegamer.com as one source of info) because I am interested in both types of games as it happens. I would do this knowing the differences and knowing I shouldn't force my opinion on a game based on the other kind of game dev.

That is a long winded way of saying - yeah, please do what Cliffski said

<edit> I also think a lot of the negativity around here is coming from the blue-sky thinkers who are feeling bound by the opinions of the business orientated. The liberated feeling of thinking "game first - money later" may not be wise for business but it can work wonders for all those new game ideas people seem to complain about not existing. As I see indiegamer.com as one of if not the most important congregation of game devs actually producing games for sale I think if "changes" are needed then freeing each type of game dev from the shackles of it's inverse type on these forums will boost/encourage both types of game development and help both types reach their full potential. knocking the wind out of the sails of devs who try something new is not good but it happens all the time around here. The same is true for those who choose to go ultra casual and want fast income, they usually suffer an anti-casual backlash. Also Signal to Noise should be a lot less with this in place. Yes I have been thinking too much about this, when I should be making games.

[svero]

Fishy / Feeding Frenzy, very negative way to see it.

Side Note : Shark Shark for Intellivision is where all this comes from if we're going back to the original game. It has growth in stages, and tail biting etc.. as well. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Sprout people never even saw Fishy. Certainly I was unaware of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark!_Shark!

[Anthony Flack]

Hey, what about me; I've been involved in this for years and years now, and I still haven't made any money. And it's definitely not a hobby, because it's far too serious, and I don't really enjoy it at all most of the time.

And I'm still doing it, and have no intention of stopping. Now that is sustainability - I mean, what could go wrong?

Should I make games that I like but know users will not? If you answered yes then go to the back of the line and be sure not to quit your day job.

I say yes! After all, if you don't make that game yourself, nobody else is going to want to do it, and you'll never even know what it would have been like.

And yep, I'll go to the back of the line, and I haven't quit my day job. I don't need an easy life; I can work two jobs.

[Andy]

Dan probably suspects that you are going to get some money from this Anthony.

REM: Just kidding nothing more. No another flame war please. :P

[soniCron]

For example: If you are making a game that will never be played by a typical casual player, reading some of the advice around here could delay the release of your game while you try to work in some streamlining to avoid using the r/m button or the keyboard, maybe you end up changing (compromising) the design of your game to fit into the perfect area of the market your game doesn't really belong!

I don't want to much further perpetuate this off-topic deviation, so I'll keep it short: I don't see it as dangerous -- I see it as inevitable. The kind of person who doesn't understand why the right mouse button should or should not be excluded from a control scheme isn't a good designer to begin with. Any advice they inappropriately apply to their games is incidental and only fits snuggly among the rest of their probably poor development decisions. If you believe for one second that any developer worth their salt would compromise a game due to misplaced understanding of our suggestions...

[Sharpfish]

I don't want to much further perpetuate this off-topic deviation, so I'll keep it short: I don't see it as dangerous -- I see it as inevitable. The kind of person who doesn't understand why the right mouse button should or should not be excluded from a control scheme isn't a good designer to begin with. Any advice they inappropriately apply to their games is incidental and only fits snuggly among the rest of their probably poor development decisions. If you believe for one second that any developer worth their salt would compromise a game due to misplaced understanding of our suggestions...

Actually I was referring to "helping others". Not everyone is a golden game designer from day one. That is part of why we read "tips" here. I understand what you are saying, that if someone read good advice and misused it then they are perhaps not the best person to do the job - however those people DO exist and are a "customer" of these forums. Many of us, regardless of our self belief do actually learn a lot from others experience, not everyone learns everything in one day. Maybe someone who is not the "complete designer" can misconstrue the advice given here.

More importantly, I am thinking that it would just make the forums a whole lot nicer and more positive place to be. If someone isn't even open minded to the possiblity of influence from reading their peers advice then they are probably designing in a vaccum to begin with and will be at the opposite extreme of what you describe.. the "Know it all designer" who has nothing to learn from anyone. Those kinds of designers wouldn't actually be reading the advice given in the first place so I doubt it applies to them anyway.

In most cases I think people are very accepting of advice given around here, you can see it in replies and the prompt "i'll fix that" in feedback threads. If you personally feel you have it all down and need no advice you obviously will not be misusing it. (which is basically what you said).

Remember, not everyone on this board is a "master" designer, nor claims to be, nor could even be - surely it's good to clear things up for this large bracket of people who are actually reading the advice instead of leaving it untouched for the "elite" who don't read it?

If you believe for one second that any developer worth their salt would compromise a game due to misplaced understanding of our suggestions...

Maybe they are not "worth their salt" does that exclude them from making games and becomming "worth their salt"? Is the entry admission of creating indie games a firm understanding of all areas of game production (Not just design) or do they learn a bit at a time and get better over time?

Also it is interesting that you pick out "designer" as there are many more issues here than a simple design one. And not forgetting how many times the "is the game i'm making ok with keyboard or do I need mouse"? question spring up. The fact is it is not a black and white answer depending on the game and audience (and their playing capabilities). Usually the thread is split between "Use the mouse only" and "give the keyboard option" with arguments for both, mainly based on conflicting business concerns of the people answering. That is why it would be clearer and less "dangerous" for those who are seeking guidance to be in a forum fitting their intended game type, unless you laugh at the idea of teaching wrong tricks to a bunch of newb designers who end up shooting themselves in the foot rather than providing clear and tailored advice.

[soniCron]

You just took what I said to a whole new level! That is so not what I was trying to say!

No, the point was that if one takes the right mouse button thing literally, then they've totally missed the point of the exercise. It's not about "the" right mouse button -- it's about the desire to streamline and simplify as much as possible, provided it enhances the game. The right mouse button is incidental. Everyone needs to learn, but if one doesn't pick up on that intent during the course of some such discussion and only focuses on the material right mouse button, then the distinction between "indie" games and casual games is certainly the least of their problems.

[Sharpfish]

You just took what I said to a whole new level! That is so not what I was trying to say!

I realise the whole right mouse button thing is not the point, and indeed in the original posts it was merely an example (and had been mentioned in relation to the rage of magic thread or something so was fresh in my mind).

My point extends beyond that to people being influenced to cater towards where they believe the "money" is. This crops up because everyone assumes that everyone who posts a game feedback request or whatever is primarily looking for money. That is when it is viewed in the context of a casual game. That is when issues such as simplified controls for instance crop up. To you and I (and many others) we know we can divide the opinions up into valid and not-valid for the game in question, but for some posting it may not be the case. Which is not really what I want to pin my bage on because, as you say, that is for the individual to work out. I don't think it helps to have this crosstalk all the time though (for anyone, regardless of skill).

What I see is not so much "danger" (forgive the loose use of words when I was talking about a vision in the post you originally replied to/quoted) but confusion.

<my real point>
2 distinct forums or even 2 sub forums and no "general" game design one (because the arguments and non helpful, but well intentioned help would carry on in there still) would be good.

If my latter replies in this thread avoid your specific point, and I read it the wrong way that's because the designer thing you picked up on is not primarily what I was interested in and I don't fully understand where you are going with it (hence my reply that missed the mark! ).

I'll say no more on it cos I've got some "to-dos" to-do before midnight

Cheers Daniel.

[Anthony Flack]

I dunno; I think it's valid and useful to discuss these points on a game-by-game basis. Can the controls be simplified? Should they be simplified? It should always be a discussion; not just people dispensing advice. After all, there are always advantages to simplifying the controls further, and there are always sacrifices. Doesn't matter what your target audience is, it's still worth kicking these ideas around.

Dan probably suspects that you are going to get some money from this Anthony.

I hope so too, but my point was - if I've been doing it for years, and haven't made any money, and don't really enjoy doing it, and I'm still not going to stop, then it makes me pretty much indestructable.

[arcadetown]

What doesn't kill you only makes you Anthony... err stronger. From all I've seen and heard Cletus if put together and marketed right will do very well for you.

[Dan MacDonald]

The power of Costikyan compells you!

[NuriumGames]

oh!, what a long post.

I agree with the article in the sense that you have to do something that really motivates you. BreakQuest was in a technical way harder that the puzzle I'm doing now but I'll be back to arcade games when I finish this one, that's what I like to play and that's what motivates me most.