Heard@GDC: Darwinia creator slams publishers, developers cheer!
by Christopher Grant 
{ Mar 23rd 2006 at 12:57PM }
Upon winning the $20,000 Seumas McNally Grand Prize at the 2006 Independent Games Festival, one of the creators of Darwinia said, "We didn't take money from publishers because we didn't want publishers to fuck with our game."
Deafening applause. Thunderous.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Crimson Angelus @ Mar 23rd 2006 1:03PM
Go that guy, my new hero. Standing up for the small guy.
Bret @ Mar 23rd 2006 1:04PM
That has to be the greatest thing I have read today.
J B Cougar @ Mar 23rd 2006 1:05PM
Hear that? That's the sound of better games coming down the pipeline. Either that, of the death knell of the entire industry. Anyone for a game of Lincoln Logs?
Matthew Lenz @ Mar 23rd 2006 1:08PM
Darwinia really is a great game. Check it out you won't be disappointed.
m3mnoch @ Mar 23rd 2006 1:09PM
[cheers exuberantly]
m3mnoch.
benjamin @ Mar 23rd 2006 1:17PM
Does that mean that his game will never be published, then?
puh_fifer @ Mar 23rd 2006 1:20PM
"I fart in your general direction. You're mother was a hamster and you're father reeked of eldaberries. Silly p-publishers"
Jigster @ Mar 23rd 2006 1:24PM
My hero. Darwinia and indie developers FTW!
Scott @ Mar 23rd 2006 1:25PM
#6, his game is available through Steam.
Good for them. Hopefully its the start of more independant thinking in game development. Goodness knows we could use it right now.
Exo @ Mar 23rd 2006 1:25PM
benjamin, it doesnt need to be, you can download it for 20 dollars if you have steam.
AndrewNeo @ Mar 23rd 2006 1:30PM
To #6: Darwinia is avaliable by Steam. I believe he meant publishers in the traditional sense, such as EA or Vivendi. By publishing on Steam, the game creators get way more money than with a normal game publisher. "Profit margins for developers are a major selling point for digital distribution, and Steam does not let the side down. Im pleased to say that there are now figures as accurate as possible for each margin: 10%-20% for traditional retail/publisher deals; roughly 60% for Steam developers; and an incredible 86% for Valve themselves. Add to that the fact that Valve doesnt take the developers IP and the effective margin becomes wider still." (Source)
AndrewNeo @ Mar 23rd 2006 1:32PM
Sorry, the source was http://www.steamreview.org/?p=16
DCSimian @ Mar 23rd 2006 1:46PM
Darwinia really does rock. Solid game. Glad that the developers won and stuck it to the man!
Steam's been a good distribution model and some of the games on there are a riot! Rag Doll Kung Fu being one of them...
Anyway...I digress.
"Don't f#$% with the Jesus!"
Dmek @ Mar 23rd 2006 1:53PM
Good Guys : 1
Man : 0
JimmyHACK @ Mar 23rd 2006 1:54PM
way to make yourself try and be cool.
now go take your 20k as opposed to 20+ mill
fag
dutchb0y @ Mar 23rd 2006 1:54PM
I think (hope?) that XBL Arcade will effectively offer this kind of value to developers as well. As far as I know, there's no pwnage by MSFT of developer IPs for Arcade titles...
not the most earthshatteringly new point being made, but relevant to the conversation.
jabbertrack @ Mar 23rd 2006 1:56PM
Someone said a curse word in front of lots of people!
I THINK THAT MAKES THEM COOL!
ZephyrXero @ Mar 23rd 2006 2:00PM
w00t!
Pancakeshouse @ Mar 23rd 2006 2:05PM
The number 13 comment could quite possibly be the best comment I have ever read.
majoon @ Mar 23rd 2006 2:06PM
That's a nice little masturbatory fantasy, but during most of the dialog between myself and Chris, he indicated the lack of ANY interest from publishers, money or no. Didn't TAKE money? Bah. Weren't offered... They are such ego-massaging children. Please, don't encourage them with your applause. This latest title was a visual feast -- for sure -- but it lacks any coherent marriage of the graphics and the sub-par gameplay mechanics. You guys go over the deep end for a crappy game with a neat graphical style and then you wonder why other developers focus their attention entirely on graphics.
The game is crap and shouldn't have won any awards other than, perhaps, innovation in visual art. Technical excellence? Which part? Rendering primitives without gouraud shading counts as technical excellence? And the grand prize? Even Seumas (God rest his soul) would have been disappointed by this overly-hyped selection that very likely only won because the game had already earned significant mindshare over the past year, due largely in part to an over-active personal relations manager.
Unfortunately, I suspect this misaligned award-giving is caused by a complete lack of diversity on IGF's judge roster. A quick glance at the IGF judges list and you will find most of the entries are members or ex-members of the mainstream gaming industry. There are two women. And no casual developers are listed. A couple editors from fly-by-night indie news sites, one of which isn't even open anymore. Where are the thoughtful souls, like Dan Cook or Ron Gilbert -- two of game development's most enlightened minds?
The IGF has been going downhill for years and is becoming little more than a joke to anyone who understands what it means to leverage the power of "indie" to innovate. What was once seen as a significant contribution to the independent game development community has since been dilluted into a cesspool of favoritism, ignorance, and sponsor battles. (Nobody else thinks it's unfit to have a sponsored award in an INDEPENDENT game development festival?) The mere fact that Darwinia was even nominated as a finalist for anything more than innovation in visual art is indicative of the lack of any true value left in the IGF awards.
Support Slamdance and other indie game award festivals that have the RIGHT idea about what means "innovation."
Tob3z @ Mar 23rd 2006 2:12PM
For the people who think we as people think that news is good because some guy said a curse word I think you should grow up.
The guy has done something which other developers are scared to do. He's got balls. Something which you immature people lack.
Darrel @ Mar 23rd 2006 2:15PM
That's a matter of opinion. I personally found Darwinia enjoyable.
Regardless of what you think of the game, this is hilarious.
Ryan @ Mar 23rd 2006 2:15PM
Awards of any kind are just a jerkfest for stroking egos. The real reward is having people appreciate your creation.
DCSimian @ Mar 23rd 2006 2:27PM
My god some of you take this stuff way too seriously.
majoon @ Mar 23rd 2006 2:29PM
Ryan (if you're the Ryan I suspect you are), I'm sorry you didn't win. Fizzwizzle rawked!
epobirs @ Mar 23rd 2006 2:49PM
Please whine louder, we can't hear you.
If someone else is digging into their pocket to finance YOUR project, guess what? They're going to expect a bit of say over the final product. It doesn't matter if its your life's work if its their money you're prepared to send down the toilet in pursuit of what may prove an unworthy obsession. A lot of investors who gave absolute freedom to creators got screwed when it turn out what at first seemed to be eccentricity was full blown psychosis.
A more gracious individual would have said the group's concept wasn't shared by any of the potential financial supporters available, so they did the hard thing and pursued it on their own.
Has this guy actually detailed what terrible requests the publishers made?
eatme @ Mar 23rd 2006 3:02PM
majoon: Slamdance is currently innovating by replacing their web site with a SQL error. If "indie" means "non-functional", count me out. Slamdance isn't for games, it's for experiments.
ck @ Mar 23rd 2006 3:06PM
Congrats to JimmyHACK for the fag comment. Because we all know that independent game developers are ALL homosexuals. And we all know that homosexuals HATE being millionaires. So that was actually quite the clever trash talk. My hats off to you.
eatme @ Mar 23rd 2006 3:06PM
Jesus, epobirs, cry a little more.
Simonc @ Mar 23rd 2006 3:49PM
Hey Majoon - simonc, IGF Chairman here. Please mail me - chairman at igf dot com - to discuss this further, because quite frankly, we put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into making the awards relevant to all indie developers, and running it fairly, and it genuinely upsets me to see someone being so vicious about the hard work we've put into it. We're hardly inside the belly of the beast, here.
majoon @ Mar 23rd 2006 3:59PM
#26: I don't know where you tried to go, but http://www.slamdance.com/games/ works fine for me. As for your experiments comment, I don't understand what you mean. However, when dealing out awards prefixed with "Innovation," it's ideal that the games in question actually innovate in some way, and the IGF winners were simply not innovative.
eatme @ Mar 23rd 2006 4:28PM
Site is fixed now.
What I mean, regarding experiments, is that when you're looking for commercial success with your game, you try a bunch of things and throw out what doesn't work. With something like Facade, some of it worked and some of it didn't, but they just released it so people could check it out. It's a very useful experiment-- all designers should play it, to gain some important insights-- but it's not a game. It's like releasing a concept car to the public.
PayTheMan @ Mar 23rd 2006 5:17PM
Saying "fuck you" to the publishers isn't about being cool you morons. It's largely symbolic of the small developers accomplishing their visions without the dilution and money of the anti-creative, money-minded corporations. It's another example of the fact that you don't need huge marketing campaigns, expensive production costs, and a shitload of corporate cash to make an awesome game. Symbolic not cool.
majoon @ Mar 23rd 2006 5:20PM
eatme: Incidentally, I just contacted Simonc and concluded that it may simply be a lexical disparity. Perhaps the IGF is outgrowing its position as a reflection of innovative ideas and is now making the rather awkward transition toward awarding quality and excellence. (Which is fine, provided the awards reflect that. "Innovation in..." doesn't.)
Adam Blinkinsop @ Mar 23rd 2006 5:24PM
Now if only the music industry's developers (the musicians) could do the same thing.
eatme @ Mar 23rd 2006 5:28PM
majoon: Well, regarding Innovation awards by the IGF or the IGDA, there is something to be said for managing to innovate within commercial constraints. Of course, being overly innovative in a commercial title and having it tank may be more a mistake than an award-worthy decision. :) It may be time for commercial game groups to drop the Innovation awards, and focus on Best categories. (Of course, wouldn't the best in a commercial category be the one with the most sales?)
Hmm. Awards ceremonies with ill-defined criteria confuse me. (Best audio? Did anyone have any clue when voting for that? What does it even mean!?) I think I've managed to sufficiently confuse myself at this point, and have nothing else to say.
epobirs @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:37PM
#29
Apply your name to yourself, kid. I've worked at a company that were destroyed because the developers made big promises they couldn't keep and weren't made to prove they were getting anything done by the management. The boss was convinced these guys were geniuses and it might upset them if they had to demonstrate some progress occasionally. What was promised for a one year delivery time took three years and left the company so financially stretched it couldn't survive. If someone in power had simply said this is an unrealistic goal and made them save the more difficult stuff for the following project a whole lot of people would have kept their jobs and a lot of games wouldn't have been canceled.
Talent is not the sole criterion for producing a successful product. You also need someone who understands how to run a business and when the talent must be made to appreciate that the salaries can't keep coming if there isn't some revenue happening as well. If they want to be independent that is all well and good. But they'd better be prepared for the hard realities of keeping the electric bill paid and other little inconveniences that crop up when you decide to be entirely on your own.
epobirs @ Mar 23rd 2006 8:50PM
#36
Awards are rarely about the truest measure of success, which is sales. Look at the Oscars. If revenue were the primary driver none of the Best Picture contenders would even be in the top ten. Or the top twenty.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2005&p=.htm
Awards, espeially by peer groups, ere typically contrary to what consumers have picked as their favorites for the same year. Even more open voting tends to be limited to those with a deeper interest than the average consumer. In Science Fiction writing the Nebula Awards are voted on by the Science Fiction Writers of America organization but the Hugo voting is open to anyone with a Worldcon membership and attendance isn't required. Even so, Worldcon members are a very small subset of those buying SF books in any given year. There was some controversy the year when 'Ender's Game' was up for Best Novel because it previously lost as a novella and frankly the novella was a better story. (Unless you're looking to set up a swarm of sequels, then you throw in a bunch of boring additional material.) But even if Card's book hadn't won he ultimately would have had the last laugh because the book has several times more than all the other nominees put together. It appeals hugely to certain kind of teenager and thus has an unending new audience to keep it in print.
Zsavior @ Mar 24th 2006 3:56AM
What made his "Fuck You" Cool was not that he said a naughty word, infront of people it, is that he didn't get up on stage and bullshit, because now he has recognition.
I think this blind defense of the Publisher, is naive and hypocritical. IF we poured through the thousands of blogs on joystiq right now, we will find hundreds upon hundreds of post critizing games content or lack of. How many games have been accused of being rushed with bad mechanics and horrible game play. You think the developer the persons whose name will be behind this game meant to do that? Or was there an outside force propelling them. But the Publisher put the money out and we buy it, when the game goes south they fire the deveoplers behind the game rather than seek the reason why that game was created that way, and we go "HA HA!" case in point Capcom axing the developers behind the Final Fight street wise game. Do you people really believe capcom was oblvious to what was being created, or do you have a feeling after seeing the urban street trend they pushed the games developer to intergrate that new urban crime theme into the game.
Their Gigantic "F'U" stood as a giant sign saying "Want to blame somebody Look here!" Rather than getting on stage and thanking everybody and gushing about how a great of an industry this is. No one believes in awards any more and that is exactly the reason why, people feel everyone has sold out who recieves an award or are two deeply entrenched in cash to open their mouth.
On the other hand Developers really have nothing to worry about the way the game industry is going publishers will kill themselves out way before it gets any worst. Look at the Hollywood movie industry, sure it brings in money but every year it brings in less and less, to the point in the Middle of the Oscars the Head of the Motion Pictures Association of America, gives he little speech and in the middle of it he adds his sly comments on how he feels movies should be watched. That is what it has come to for Hollywood, trying dictate to the viewer what kind of movie experience they should like, rather than creating an experience worth enjoying.
How Long till Game Publishers are trying the same technique of telling us where the "Real" great games are and what we should be enjoying rather than creating an innteractive experience. Much like movies and music people will get tired of being force fed media they don't like, it is just up to the indie scene to keep up the integrity with out subcoming to cash and high profit, like the the independent film did.
Rkiver @ Mar 24th 2006 8:29AM
I know the guys at Introversion personally, I've met them, and partied with them, and yes no publishers offered them money, mainly because Darwinia wasn't FIFA 200x clone or something similar, it was innovative in a market saturated with clones. IV decided to go it on their own, risking it all, and they suceeded, and even got a deal with Steam for distribution. They managed to do what so many of us could never do, and I am looking forward to IV's next game, Defcon.
So while majoon thinks Introversion aren't decent, I ask majoon, where's your games?
majoon @ Mar 24th 2006 11:19AM
#40: And risk negative bias in upcoming festivals? No thanks. Rest assured that I'm a contributing member of the independent game development community with successes and failures, just like everyone else. Besides, the quality of my titles is irrelevant in this discussion. Don't get me wrong: In general, I think these guys are fine. But this was a childish stunt that hardly deserves applause, especially since the whole thing was a farce to begin with.
Martin @ Mar 24th 2006 11:21AM
Darwinia is a truly wonderful game - try the demo
marigold @ Mar 24th 2006 11:38AM
To all,
Regardless of whether you support the 'FU' statement, what effect do you think is possible from it?
Jeff Plum @ Mar 24th 2006 6:09PM
Well, it's all a very heated debate. I'm not from the games industry and my honest opinion is this: I don't know the facts, I don't know the IV guys personally and I've never been to San Francisco, but I've played Darwinia and I think it is extremely interesting. It's not the most polished game in the world and those used to playing C&C and the like won't take kindly to the 'straight-line' policy of moving units (ie no waypoint plotting) or the ridiculously frustrating task manager mouse gesture thing. But the point is surely this: the people who made this game have their hearts in the right place. I haven't been this thrilled to experience a game since Commander Keen, and that's really what I believe people get from Darwinia - an overall experience of contentment. Every other game on the market panders to our normal gaming demands, so why can't a game like Darwinia satisfy that exciting-new-experience feeling? I can't help but think of when Peter Molyneux started out.. Don't you remember that buzz when you first played Populous? Or Syndicate? And were they flawed? Of course they were. But they are still awesome games and part of our culture. So stop infighting, because you're all playing for the same team. And me, as a gamer that demands new ideas, wants you all to keep on creating those games because they are the ones that give me hope. Just thought I'd give my two penn'orth. JP
Iris @ Mar 24th 2006 9:25PM
Does that FU word have to mean so much to anybody else? They're making a statement for themselves, and they're just letting the world know how they feel, and I don't think they said that just for the appeal.
Well, the thing is, Introversion and their games certainly will not please everybody...hell, which developer or game ever did? Someone will always find a fault, or act the devil's advocate, or simply just not like it. Thing is, if you liked Darwinia, well and good. If you didn't, don't start nitpicking, just leave it and move on. How complicated can that be? (unless your egos and your favorites are bruised...)
anon @ Mar 26th 2006 2:08PM
majoon- Do you know the introversion guys? I doubt it. Have you read anything about the history of where they have come from? I think not.
Jealousy is very ugly!!! Grow up!
Mark Morris @ Mar 26th 2006 6:11PM
As the guy that made the comment, I thought I'd mention a couple of things to keep the debate going.
Firstly, Publishers have a business model that pushes commercial success to the exclusion of creativity. If you accept money upfront, you will end up churning out the next sequel or movie tie-in to the specification and timescales of the publishers. This is not their fault, it is just the direction in which the industry has evolved. What is frustrating is that the issue is not being hotly debated or considered and the publishers and developers are doing nothing to change the status quo.
At introversion we have an incredibly strong creative vision which permeates all of the business decisions, and is factored in when we discuss financial or contractual issues. For example, we have not yet taken any funding for a project until it is finished that way the game can not be pulled to far from its original course. Im not sure how many other developers have that same creative mindset and that worries me.
The comment I made at IGF was intended to stir up debate and discussion and thought on the nature of the publisher/developer relationship, but I didnt want to spend half an hour lecturing everybody on the state of the industry!
saru @ Mar 26th 2006 6:58PM
He actually didn't say 'fuck you'. His words were...'We didn't accept any money from publishers because we didn't want them fucking up our game'. To which the crowd went wild!!! He then went on to say that they were glad that they stuck to their guns and they were thankful that Darwinia has been such a success. Introversion are an example of the fact that you do not have to sell out to be successful.
And as for the fag comment- I know Mark personally and trust me...he is most certainly not gay! And what a very mature and intellectual comment to have made!
Cliff Harris @ Mar 27th 2006 3:53PM
How can anyone be so petty as to slag off introversion because they didnt get publisher interest?
Have you SEEN some of the crap that publishers DO put on shelves?
Darwinia wasn't an established genre or a sequel and had no big name behind it. therefore the publishers marketing dept would need to be good at their jobs, and having worked (in previous jobs) alongside BIG publishers marketing depts, i can assure you, those guys are idiots.
I very much doubt the IV guys care that there is no publisher interest. I sell games direct like they do, and take 90% of the sale price, whereas with retail, you are likely to get maybe 10-20%, and zero contact with the customers. I doubt any of the IV guys cry themselves to sleep over not having made Eidos shareholders any richer.
Personally, I didn't like Darwinia, I didnt like the interface, but I know a load of people who loved it, and I have a lot of respect for their game design style.
The world needs more companies like IV, and less big developer/publisher fanboys.
And I need to remember to enter my poxy games in the IGF!
majoon @ Mar 29th 2006 12:57AM
>>Publishers have a business model that pushes commercial success to the exclusion of creativity.
It's not only the publishers who are devoid of creativity. They may choose to develop "safe" titles, but there is a shameful dearth of talented professionals in this industry. Do you know how many up-and-comers want to make FPS's or MMORPG's? I blame the developers.
>>What is frustrating is that the issue is not being hotly debated or considered and the publishers and developers are doing nothing to change the status quo.
It sounds like you're hanging out with the wrong people. Give Indiegamer.com a try sometime -- probably the most concise single collection of indie developers on the web. We would all certainly welcome your presence! :)
>>Im not sure how many other developers have that same creative mindset and that worries me.
Even when left to their own devices, indies behave just like the risk-averse publishers: they will most frequently take the path of safety. And they have very good reason to. Of anyone developing games, the poor-in-the-basement indie is the LEAST financially stable. They don't often have entire catalogs of games to keep a single miss afloat: Very frequently one or two misses will kill an indie developer.