Why there are no indie games (and why there should be)
While there are indie game projects -- like that Indy point-and-clicker I wrote about earlier -- the industry continues on a path towards longer development time and larger budgets making indie gaming, as we've come to know it, largely inviable.Luke O'Brien takes a look at the problem for Slate and ponders why, when some of the industry's earliest blockbusters were the product of independent development (think Ultima, Doom, Dune II), independent development is the rare exception to the rule. While mainstream publishers rely on sequels and updates, certain factions (like Costikyan's Manifesto Games) are trying to bypass the system by selling their games online.
One notable omission: episodic gaming. With companies like Telltale Games and Valve actively using technology to deliver their games directly to gamers and disrupt the publisher paradigm, O'Brien's piece didn't consider the effects of these (admittedly larger) independent developers. Can independent developers use technology to assume control from the major publishers, much like the early movie industry did?
[Thanks, Andrew]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Armin @ May 28th 2006 7:08PM
Because costs were far lower in the old days, Doom and Ultima were very cheap to make compared to todays games.
Becase of the technology (graphics and physics) in todays games, the price is quite high as well.
Koorb @ May 28th 2006 7:14PM
This is a hysterical argument that ignores the success of recent indie games. They might not sell as many as the EA blockbusters, but considering the amount they spend on marketing their success is far more infectious. This alone makes them more noteworthy.
cringer8 @ May 28th 2006 7:15PM
When I plug in my Wii on day one, the first thing I'm doing is setting up my WiFi and checking out the Virtual Console. There had better be some indy titles available right off the bat, or I'm going to write one nasty letter (I don't know to whom).
Casual games with increasing difficulty and endless levels are vital to the gaming industry (in my opinion). I love "minigames."
*Side Note: "Sadness" for the Wii is looking to be an intersting indy title. Have we heard anything on an expected completion date/year?
Dave @ May 28th 2006 7:17PM
It's just like the movie industry. Big name studios make the polished, sequel-based, and the like. But there's still the independant films festivals, and if a movie gets enough attention at one of those, there's a good chance a big industry will pick it up. Just look at Alien Hominid.
epobirs @ May 28th 2006 7:28PM
There are plenty of independent games. They appear as freeware and shareware. They appear on Flash and Shockwave sites.
If you're looking for games in ziploc bags at a local computer store, that doesn't happen anymore. If you're looking for the work of small groups or individuals, it's out there in huge amounts. Most of it is garbage and clones but it's always been that way.
xenikos @ May 28th 2006 7:32PM
Can indie developers make blockbuster games that sell like gangbusters? It will happen, one in a million. Right curcumstances have to happen.
The much larger role indie developers could possibly play is in the creation of smaller scope games that have a vastly reduced price. Serious Sam, and the like. That seems relatively rare now, but I think that might change in the future. I see gaming eventually moving in the direction of massive persistent worlds, through which smaller games can be accessed. Most will likely be closed out to indie developers, but some situations might be open to them. Rockstar's table tennis game seems like the type of game that might fit in this scenario (much as GTA:SA had lots of minigames, I see persistent worlds having minigames of their own that could be well developed by indie producers. Pure speculation.
Jay @ May 28th 2006 7:35PM
the divide separated. Freeware and massively-commercial grow. it's in between, the indie that shrinks.
Ho hum.
AJYablo @ May 28th 2006 7:39PM
Just spend a few minutes searching the intranet.
You will find lots of indie games.
Console indie games would happen when they get picked up by a publisher(Alien Hominid?).
Console games cost alot of money, and the indie world wants there games easily accesible instead of loaded costs and akk that jibber.
Just like the music industry, the indie artists want their music out there to get known. Then they can do well.
http://nibbles.tenstones.net/
Dirk Dorkelson @ May 28th 2006 7:50PM
Not mentioned in the article is the potential for indie game developers to sell cheaper games via download on Xbox Live Marketplace, Microsoft's Virtual Console and whatever the PS3's downloadable game service is called. Outpost Kaloki X was an indie title, and a pretty fun one at that. Ditto Mutant Storm. Developers of both of these games are doing more work for the 360, hopefully a sign of more to come.
Now, for this model to work, the console manufacturers need to realize they've got a good thing going. They need a good quality control/certification process to keep the signal-to-noise ratio high. And they need not to get greedy and start demanding a larger cut of the revenue.
Gamer Jay @ May 28th 2006 8:32PM
It will indeed be interesting to note how indie developers grow with Xbox Live and Sony's online distribution system. Many gamers like myself appreciate independent games and have the capacity to vote with our wallets. As we spend money on these titles, Microsoft and Sony take notice. I love the smell of capitalism in the morning.
The ZeroCorpse @ May 28th 2006 8:41PM
As far I see on Xbox Live Arcade, the majority are indie games, and some do quite well.
No, the retail distribution scheme won't work for indies- Same applies with indie music and movies, too- but online distro makes for an open playing field.
Dirk Dorkelson @ May 28th 2006 8:44PM
Whoops. That was supposed to say "Nintendo's Virtual Console."
Matt @ May 28th 2006 10:20PM
The problem with the industry (much like the movie industry) is that people are brand-driven. Certain games will sell no matter what because they have the brand behind them. Meanwhile, the best games in the world will never sell if nobody hears about them. Personally, I like trying to find indie games and test them out. Actually just started a blog to review and preview games that will never be big names but are fun to play. It's new at the moment, but send suggestions to get games reviewed that you think should be: http://www.obscuregaming.com
Nightime Sun @ May 28th 2006 10:34PM
Yeah, I was going to raise Xbox Live Arcade as well. Titles I've found there are lower budget from independent developers.
Personally, I really enjoyed and played Mutant Storm just as much as I played Burnout Revenge.
Jeff @ May 28th 2006 11:57PM
I think some of you are confusing "indie" with "homebrew".
It is the same as the difference between a band that releases its first CD on SubPop Records vs. a band that puts together their first demo tape, makes a homepage and puts it up for download. It doesn't necessarily mean the music's going to be better or worse one way or another, but having a label - even (or especially) an indie one - is still a level up.
Anybody can make a game and stick it up on the net. Heck, I've got a bunch of stuff I wrote in BASIC for the Apple II 25 years ago that I could put up. Does that make me an indie game developer? No, those are homebrews.
The distinction is really just that there's been a level of filtering done already. The three examples given in the submission above - Ultima, Doom and Dune II - all were published by actual, honest-to-god publishers.
The question is whether there can actually be independent developers in the world today who can afford to create games good enough to garner that kind of attention and land a major distribution deal. Nearly all games today (and remove the "nearly" if you're talking game consoles) are either commissioned from publishers to begin with or are developed in-house by publishers.
The last paragraph of the post - about downloads from major, established developers - is kinda moot, IMO. There's nothing really new about that - it's just the distribution medium that's changed. You used to get games on unlabeled floppies at computer stores, now you download them. They're only slightly removed from the homebrew scene in that these games come from more established (or simply larger, and more well-organized) developers, who are themselves acting as publisher. To me, that puts them more in the realm of the publisher/developer - which is really no different from what most of the industry is anyway. If Valve is a fairly large, established corporation that's developing and distributing games, how does that make them different from, say, Take 2?
Canadian Geese @ May 29th 2006 1:09AM
Good indie developers will not be indie for long. Go future blockbuster creators!!!
Ben Hobbs @ May 29th 2006 2:05AM
Its all very good looking at the olden days of game development with rose tinted glasses, but I think people are forgetting how hard those old platforms were to actually program for.
No development kits, no easy way to display graphics, no OO or graphics engines or other re-usable modules.
so clever games designers cut their teeth on mods, Xbox Live arcade games or homebrew/shareware type games - Until they get recognised and hired or set-up with a games company.
your also missing the fact that a whole industry *including small players) has been set-up providing what I guess you would call game middleware or toolkits, people like Bink, Garagegames etc..
Waccoon @ May 29th 2006 2:12AM
*Armin: "Because costs were far lower in the old days, Doom and Ultima were very cheap to make compared to todays games."
I recall you had to worry about a lot of low-level BS back then. These days, writing software is a lot easier thanks to less bit twiddling. Development was arguably more fun when the demoscene was bigger, but relative costs for the same result were higher.
If Virtual Console is the path to alternative development, that could revive not only the retro flavor of games, but also the retro development problems. It depends if Virtual Console is just a distribution service, or an emulator acting as a hardware sandbox.
If you want true alternative development (more appropriately, "homebrew"), we need more cheap PCs with real operating systems and real tools, like the GP2X. Consoles with crippled OSes, no hardware documentation, and DRM up the wazoo won't work.
*Jay: "the divide separated. Freeware and massively-commercial grow. it's in between, the indie that shrinks."
I though the whole point of being "indie" was not being mainstream. I wouldn't call the XBox Live developers indie. They're just small-time developers, with small budgets. They require low-cost development kits, and that still makes them subject to the problems of larger developers, just to a lesser degree. True alternative development requires a more open platform. The PC will always exceed in this area.
Porting something like Allegro to a console, running on a Java-like programming language free from the legacy problems of C... now that would be interesting.
Merus @ May 29th 2006 4:18AM
I've been keeping a close eye on indy game projects, and I've even helped with one or two.
Firstly: Costikyan is a suit. He doesn't particularly understand the games, he just likes the idea of there being indy games. I'm not sure this is the best approach when really the idea of indy is that no suits are involved. On the other hand, Costikyan appears to be trying to set up a studio system ala movies, so that at least is an improvement.
He's also right about gamers: it's at least half your fault. Indy games are not hard to find - start fromt he Underdogs and work your way out. Ask any reasonably successful indy developer and they'll be happy to point you to other titles. Most gamers, however, don't care, and neither do most of the mainstream publications who figure, for the most part correctly, that all people want to hear about are the games that everyone else will be playing in three months.
cringer8 @ May 29th 2006 4:55AM
Jeff,
Anyone not commissioned by a publisher is independent. Be it a company or individual. That includes homebrewed games, which may be super-simple and easy to create, but they still don't have a publisher. We can't go judging who DESERVES the title "developer." I used to program games for graphing calculators. I was a game developer. You, too, were a video game developer. The games didn't develop themselves (though it seems like they could have).
Don't knock the homebrewers; they too have potential for greatness.
theo @ May 29th 2006 6:36AM
As well as ignoring the potential of xbl, the ps3 online solution and nintendo's download service, they're also ignoring
a) Mobile phone games, which don't require a big budget
b) The millions of online independantly developed games you can play
c) Games for the GBA and to a lesser extent DS, which also don't always require such huge budgets.
His basic statement can in essence be broken down to
"Independant gamers aren't making the games they can't afford to make", which was self evident anyway.
Nater @ May 29th 2006 10:19AM
ummm Darwinia? Uplink? Defcon? what do you think these all are??? OH YEAH!! INDIE GAMES!?!
Invincibul @ May 29th 2006 11:00AM
I was trying to develop a PC game myself with my friends, but I could'nt get it right. Although I got my hands on some great software. You cannot work on it unless you have any game development experience. I see the inclusion of Linux in the PlayStation 3 as a good thing, and I suppose they would support guys like me. We could also use the Online services Live and the other two for Game distribution. Remember Games like Heavenly Sword are developed by Independent Game Developers like Ninja theory.
Dirk Dorkelson @ May 29th 2006 1:36PM
Waccoon,
Being "indie" doesn't have anything to do with whether it's mainstream. Indie is short for "independent." Even though you can buy the latest Yo La Tengo album at Wal-Mart and their sound is fairly accessible, they're still an indie band.
Mutant Storm has like two developers. Just because Xbox Live Arcade is its retail channel doesn't mean that it wasn't produced by an independent development house.
Paul Taylor @ May 29th 2006 2:21PM
We're fed up with insulting and unhelpful posts like this and respond thus:
http://www.mode7games.com/blog/?p=71
When are indie games actually going to get intelligent and thorough coverage by news sites? Instead of being constantly beguiled by the PR approaches of large companies, isn't it the duty of independent news sites to actively seek out indie projects to cover, instead of ignoring them and then making cheap generalisations?
Dirk Dorkelson @ May 29th 2006 4:11PM
Paul,
While Joystiq (and all the Weblogs blogs) are editorially independent from their parent company, they're still owned by AOL. Appealing to Joystiq as a partner in indiedom doesn't seem logically sound.
Also, Joystiq makes no claim on being a news site.
While I'd like to see Joystiq cover more indie games, I'm not sure I want the blog to just start running the equivalent of passed-along press releases announcing new games from indie developers, which is what you seem to want them to do in your essay.
In case you didn't notice, Joystiq doesn't really run many original reviews. Most of the commentary is just aggregating what others say. Maybe Joystiq needs to add a blogger who has time to write about indie gaming and developing. Maybe someone who's passionate about indie gaming or developing (and who knows how to spell and write coherent sentences) should step up to the plate and offer to blog.
Paul Taylor @ May 29th 2006 5:06PM
Dirk,
Thanks for actually contributing something to the debate - I appreciate it.
"I'm not sure I want the blog to just start running the equivalent of passed-along press releases announcing new games from indie developers, which is what you seem to want them to do in your essay."
That's not what I intended to convey in my post. I believe that titles such as ours (and not just us - games like Lugaru might fall into the same category) might be deserving of merely a mention in general posts on the indie sector.
"While Joystiq (and all the Weblogs blogs) are editorially independent from their parent company, they're still owned by AOL. Appealing to Joystiq as a partner in indiedom doesn't seem logically sound."
That depends on your particular brand of logic You might not call Introversion a true "indie" games company because they no longer self-publish. Joystiq sets itself up as a rapid-response comment site - a little bit of news with a dab of editorial, but it has a distinctive voice and a somewhat independent status, despite its affiliation with Weblogs.
You don't have to run a feature on any indie game that comes along, but why bemoan a situation when you're in an active place to change it, and you're sitting there doing nothing?
Brent @ May 30th 2006 12:18AM
Here is a web site devoted to "Indie" games.
http://www.gametunnel.com
I worked on Outpost Kaloki X for Xbox Live Arcade. (This game was mentioned previously in this post) I would love to explain why we consider this an indie game . . .
We are a small game developer that has done a handful of contract games for publishers. We came up with a game idea for a space station tycoon game on a console. We pitched it to a lot of publishers. Many publishers liked what they saw but were not willing to risk a full console budget on a console tycoon game. Most console tycoon games in the past have been converted from PC versions and have not sold well.
We decided to wrap up our demo and release it as a PC downloadable game on our website www.Ninjabee.com . We aren't good marketers, we make games, so although it won awards, we didn't make back the money we spent on it.
We got in touch with Microsoft, they believed in us and allowed us to make our game for the 360, as we originally envisioned. They gave us the opportunity but we paid for it. We found friends with money, took out a loan and made the game ourselves. We took a Huge risk on an idea that was just far enough out of the mainstream that it was hard to find a publisher.
If you pay for it yourself and are able to make a game that otherwise might not get done, then that is the beauty of independent games!
Because of the success of Live Arcade, I believe everyone will begin to pay more attention to these indie developers. Microsoft has been great! This doesn't mean they will be able to allow every guy in his basement the opportunity to make a Live Arcade game. There is still a big barrier to entry that may frustrate many indie developers. You need to prove you are capable before you can make the game. Because Microsft is still going to support the "indie" developer, even when they could give allow the big publisher to take over now that everyone knows you can make money on Live Arcade, we will all benefit!