Slashdot Mirror
Can Game Developer Unrest Lead to Revolution?
Bakajin writes "Greg Costikyan's blog article A Specter is Haunting Gaming speaks in coarse language about "despair" in the independent game developing community. He says that despite the fact that no Independent Game Festival title "has ever gone on to major publication and success... 10,000 geeks... would just love to do what the IGF guys are doing... work on something you believe in, not churn out the next big-budget piece of crap." I can't help but read that and think that it represents a huge opportunity for a new game machine that lowers the bar for entry and has a unique revenue model. However, is the story of Indrema a prophesy? Is Infinium just vapor? Is there any other solution?"
The industry is fucked. It's less imaginative, more risk averse, than the fucking music business. It makes Hollywood look happy to take a flyer on talent.
Crappy CDs only cost 20 bucks. Crappy games cost around $50 bucks.
And personally, I'm sick of strategy games with the same format but just different units over and over again.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Work together or die seperately. It's that simple. A solid common platform needs to be developed, BSD licensed (YES BSD in this case - actual real money needs to be made selling it).
The biggest problem, though, is artwork. The best solutions I've seen are a) a creative commons-like approach and b) an entirely parametric object mesh/texture-definition approach with an open library. I don't hold out much hope for the former and the latter is another generation or two off in technology.
IAAPGD (professional game developer)...
:)
In this regard, the game biz is much like the music biz.
Both have a huge thriving independent scene, which contains bucketloads of talent. This is where you tend to go to get technical innovation, new ideas, or just off-the-wall insanity. There's a fairly low initial requirement to do it, since all you really need is a computer, although other equipment (instruments/devkits) can make certain things much easier.
The alternative to this indie scene is to 'sell out' - join a player in the organised business-oriented world of AAA hit-driven titles, which make money often at the expense of creativity. There are exceptions to this (be they Radiohead or Rez/Ico), but most things fit that rule (Fifa 2000/1/2/3/etc).
I'm a sell-out. I didn't want to make indie games, particularly. I wanted to make a living doing stuff I liked...
Game dev and music blog
Tell us what you really think.....
More to the point tho, does the write actually suggest anything that might be DONE about this problem, this "palpable sense of frustration"?
Just my £0.02
Scrab
RoseColor red={0, 0xffff, 0x0000, 0x0000};VioletColour blue={0, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0xffff};find / -name *mybase*|chown you
In the words of the article.
Game development is not what it used to be. Nor will it be again. Get over it.
As computer games have become mainstream entertainment,
the industry has also gone the same way:
A few large companies serving 99% of the audience.
Anyone who is litterate can write a book.
Anyone with a camera can make a movie.
Very few writers get published, and few amateur moviemakers go big-time.
Why would it be any different for game developers?
Writers can always publish themselves and there's always UHF freqencies
and public-access for the amateur TV-producer.
Shareware and such are the computer game equivalents of these.
Nothing wrong with that. Many Hollywood directors started out with a Super-8 as well.
But please, don't pretend that you can turn back time to when competitive computer games
could be produced by a lone independent developer.
To come up with something innovative is more difficult in a mature market then a new one. In the beginning a lot of titles were innovative (started a new game genre). Now almost everything is done. Look at the already matured music or movie industry: almost all products are a variant on something else.
Sometimes a new genre becomes mainstream, but mostly that just means that the genre already existed, but comes to the attention of the masses (for example old tunes used in a commercial influence newer pop music).
However we do not have to despair, sometimes a real new movie concept comes up (and has of course a lot of follow-ups...) or someone writes a real new composition.
The frequency of innovation is just lower. This will also be the case in the game industry.
I was kind of hoping that games would become an art form and be taken as seriously as films, records or books by the creative establishment. Instead we have bypassed the artistic stage altogether and fallen straight into the hollywood cash-cow wasteland. I cant even see how games could get out of that, although Peter Molyneux seems to have some ideas judging by yesterday's article.
Isn't this somewhere that open source is in theory already paving the way?
Stuff like SDL, even Java, have surely lowered the bar far enough that cross-platform home computer games can be made easily enough. Making for a console is a whole different ballgame of course, since they're essentially completely proprietary embedded systems (yes, I'm counting the PC-like Xbox here).
I suspect that revenue models are a bigger problem, combined with distribution. To earn enough from a game paid for in very small chunks (say a free demo, then paying for new levels), you'd need to be damn sure people would keep buying them. Also, you'd need to be sure that people were honest enough not to just slap then into their P2P apps...
Game dev and music blog
The problem is not finding a publisher, the problem is *money*. Publishers provide that money. If you want to get rid of publishers, you need some other way of covering financial needs:
- Open Games: everyone works for free and contributes as he wants. Nice, but I do not know how to build this into a business model (despite the success of Open Source).
- Limit costs severely: use stock engines, find some way to produce the artwork more cheaply, etc. To help here, developers primarily need good tools: the aforementioned stock engines, but also drawing tools, music tools, organizational tools, etc. Open Source might be a (partial) solution here.
- Find another source of money. A bank, maybe, or a sponsor. Obviously a sponsor will want control over content, and a bank will want your soul (or at least a decent business plan).
If you can solve the money puzzle, you will have a workable business model for selling games without a publisher.
The other services rendered by a publisher (marketing, technical support of various kinds, distribution) can be solved even by an independent developer, as long as he has access to sufficient money.
Interesting article. The comment about independent labels seems a bit screwy though - "I said that gaming needs an independent label" part of what music indies are about is that there are a plethora of them. Unusual games, like unusual music, will rarely be mainstream, so indies are by nature small. If you want to get independent games, you need to look at how the indie music circuit works.
/extremely unlikely/ there will ever be an indie scene for consoles.
Bands form, play to local audiences, get some radio time (eg John Peel session over here), get broader sales off the back of that, get signed by an indie, which in turn gets bought out to run as a subsidiary of a major player (think Creation records, for example, bought out by Sony)
The margins at each level are small enough that you need to get bigger backing to support the up-front costs of making sales into the next larger market. Bands don't need a label to do a 1000 pressing release; Independents don't need major backing to do a release in the UK; they do to go global.
If this is really where gaming wants to go, then they need to think about how to make money on a '1000 sales' game; how to make money on a '50,000 sales' game; and how to get backing from a major for a global game (250,000+ sales; figures plucked out of the air, probably unrealistic).
The distribution models for the consoles - with a license fee paid to the mfr, special disk pressing costs, etc, seem to me to put it beyond what can be economically done for '1000 sales'. The games market, unlike the music market, is pretty much a national game at the lowest level anyway, which means there's a huge barrier to entry for indies.
The economics of this are fairly compelling. You can't economically do a few thousand sales to a national market. So, you have to increase your margins. Sell downloads not media, sell direct to the public, produce games in less time (ie less complex games). The media limitation means that it is
-Baz
For the longest time that was the only choices we had! We couldn't get even crappy mainstream games. In an odd way I think of it as a blessing. We were exposed to great little garage design houses like Ambrosia, the maker of the Escape Velocity, Aperion and Pop-pop! They sell only through the web. They can't afford shelf space. But that hasn't caused them any big problems.
;p
I believe that Linux folks know all about garage crews as well so that part is covered. Now you just have to teach them to pay for their games.
You Windows users. Look around and explore! There are tresures out there waiting to be found. Package glitz isn't everything! For every game (good ones) that you buy creativity survives for that much longer!
-- What's this '-r *' file doing here? -- Oh well, a simple 'rm' should do the trick.
Face it, games are going to have to be "repetitive" because people expect virtual perfection for them. Also, most companies no longer have the will or desire to build a brand new (fill in the blank) engine. They just license the parts and build their story. To do otherwise would be like inventing a new language before you wrote a novel.
I do not buy this crap for a minute that big industry is in the process of "Hollywoodizing" the game industry. Granted Sony, Nintendo, M$, et.all seem to have a lock on the console market. That would be because the DESIGNED a lock into the console. The computer game market is still WIDE open though, as is the Cell Phone/PDA market.
PC and PDAs are general purpose computers. Open Source has, in the past, created immense libraries to handle everything from databases to boot prompts. There is nothing blocking someone from taking up the cause for game engines. Well, except for the fact that everyone expects to make a zillion dollars from the endeavor.
Linus did not start coding Linux in the hopes of raking in mad cash. RMS has never had any illusions of monetary gain. We need someone to start a similar project for games, but in the tradition of the great open-source projects, not quit his/her day job and do it on the side.
It takes years, yes, but look at the results.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
This is really depressing. It's been ages since I've been excited about a game, or been able to play it for hours. Now it seems like we spend our time waiting for the "next big thing", Neverwinter Nights, Warcraft III, Master of Orion 3, Team Fortress 2 (ha!), Doom 3, etc.
We don't buy other unknown titles because they cost so much and no-one else will own them to play with. We wait, and get these games which, sometimes, just aren't that good.
I miss the times when I'd have a game I'd play for hours on end - Transport Tycoon, Master of Orion 2, Ultima 7/8, etc. Innovation really is missing. Case point - the newest game we've started playing at our lan's is Natural Selection, a half life mod. This game is so different from any other first person shooters. It is refreshing and amazing fun, we played for many hours. It's the most fun I've had at a lan for a long time. Why can't we have good new games? Fuck Unreal Tournament 2003, Quake 4 (yes it's being made, not by ID), or these sequals. I want something new, something refreshing. I wish games were a third of the cost they are now, so that I could buy 4-5 games instead of just buying one to be safe. I could try out new games by a company I've never heard of. Right now it breaks the bank of most younger gamers (I'm not one - anymore).
It still is. A good programmer and artist team can build a game for a few hundred dollars.
Depends on what your talking about. If your talking about the next tetris clone or similar puzzle game sure.
Otherwise it would only cost a couple hundred dollars if they programers and artist already had all the necessary hardware and software. More importantly only if those artists and programmers are willing to not get paid for 2 years while they develop the game. Actually make that 4 years since you would have no budget for testing so the artists and programmers would have to do their own testing. Which by the way is an activity that a majority of programmers (myself included) suck at.
IAAAPGD
I've been to the last couple of GDCs and seen independent gaming's "best of the best". I've also downloaded hundreds of demos from independent developers. They're not very good.
This statement can be split into two different areas -- gameplay and presentation. Anyone in the industry can tell you about the legions of fanboys who want to "reinvent" the FPS genre by adding an autocannon, or "save fighting games" with this really cool interactive environment ideas. Just because you love games does not make you a game design, any more than a love for music makes you a musician. I'm not saying you have to be a professional to have good ideas, but if you took a random sample of 100 professional game developers and 100 indies, the pros would have the most exciting ideas hands down.
The other side of the coin is presentation. Game costs are ballooning and people expect their games to look like Gran Turismo and Tekken and you WILL be knocked by the consumer, the press and the almighty retailer if you fall short. A group of independent developers with a staff of six will find it tough to compete. Even if they have kick-ass gameplay, without polished presentation it will never hit the over-crowded store shelves.
A lot of professional games are crap. It's romantic to think that the answer lies with independent developers. I think we're better off trying to balance the power between developer and publisher AND publisher and retailer (the former will never happen without the latter), so that developers have a better ability to stick to their guns.
Why does a game have to go to "Major Publication" to be a success?
/vs Supermarket, corner cofee shop /vs Starbucks or corner bookstore /vs Barnes & Nobels.
Why can't a game (or any content) serve a focused, interested community? Sure, most people will just go to the major vendors, but some will find the game that fits their particular interest.
This works the same for corner grocers
In town and cities that are spread out the superstores win out because of convenience. In dense cities the corner stores can do very well. It's just as easy to get to the individual stores and they can taylor what they carry to meet the local needs.
I guess it depends on what best models the net. Is it spread out where it becomes convinent to have one size fits all content or is it a dense city where its easy to find thing that fit my specific needs?
=Shreak
Somebody will have to start a underground/independent game label, just like some people do in the record industry when they get fed up with the big labels crappy attitude towards alternative music.
The problem is that it takes a week to record a CD, plus the time it takes one or two people to write songs (let's say a year). But it takes 30-50 people 2 to 3 years to create a high-end game. There's no indie group capable of this, just as there's no indie group capable of creating a movie like Saving Private Ryan.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, Greg likes to bring up Snood and Bejeweled and other me-too remakes of many other me-too remakes. Simple games. Ones that could be written for a class project in college. But those games are only one segment of the market. If high-end games collapse, then there's nothing to fill the void. Trifles like Bejeweled may each have their niche, but that's generally not what the people who buy Metroid Prime, Diablo 2, Halo, or even The Sims, are looking for.
Part of the "risk aversion" on the part of these major publishers has to go back to the fact that customers are asked to pay upwards of $50 US for new releases. I know that it is expensive to develop games and that cost needs to be covered. I'm not offering a solution here, just identifying a problem.
But at $50 a game, publishers aren't the only ones making an investment in games. Those of us that want to buy new games but can't afford $50 a pop have to make our choices carefully. A lot of people look at a shelf full of games and can only afford to buy one this month and make a conservative decision b/c they want a game they know they will enjoy, they don't want to take a risk on a game that they aren't sure about. I don't know how to get out of that cycle, but it just seems like at the current pricing for games, you better be darn sure you like it or else you just threw away 50 bucks. And as long as people think like that, certain kinds of games are going to be more profitable than others.
When was the last time you priced out ( or actually paid for ) development tools ? Hmm ?
Have you SEEN what it costs to just buy some of the development SOFTWARE (nevermind hardware/ target equipment ) ? Try pricing out some of that. Unless you're in Academia ( in which case, note that your "license" to that development software probably doesn't grant you to produce software for commercial use anyway. Not that anyone's noticing. ), it's INCREDIBLY expensive.
I remember when I paid $99 for Turbo C, and a friend and I produced a couple of "GO"-based games. Or when we paid $199 for Manx C for the Amiga ( and MAN did that purchase stretch my pocket at the time, after just dishing $1500 for the Amiga 1000 and monitor ), and wrote a Sargon knock-off we shared with our friends.
These days, we're talking upwards of a $1000 for a "Professional" grade IDE under Windows. The fact is, most of the development systems for these "mobile" platforms, exist hosted under Windows ( No argument from you Linux or Mac folks. I'm actually one of you, but I have kids to feed and clothe, ok ? )
No offense to Borland, but even the cost of C++ Builder has gotten ridiculous.
New sig: Innovate, don't succubate.
It's called a Linux PC. With Tux Racer as the minimum performance
standard, plus a requirement of good TV Out support, there is a large
market for games.
1. A desire to compete with the big boys--to make the next Quake killer, to build a wicked-cool 3D game of epic proportions, etc.
2. A desire to make a fun little game.
Much of the beef with the current state of indy gamemaking seems to revolve around group one. Everybody wants to be David to the industry's Goliath; everybody wants to be that breakthrough, rags-to-riches, beat-the-odds underdog. To that end, there are -maybe- half a dozen indy groups/folks who have the vision, dedication, and know-how to actually pull this off; they crop up every now and then, release an acclaimed title, and often end up entering (gasp!) the industry.
Sad fact is, you're not gonna be able to go toe to toe with a company that can throw three dozen full-time people and several million dollars at any given title. It's not gonna happen. No matter how cool, revolutionary, or fresh your idea is, odds are, you -don't- have -all- the skills necessary to pull it off on an indy budget. You're a crack coder, but can't design a UI to save your life. You can create beautiful game art but physics makes your head swim. You've got this really, really cool special effect that puts the big houses' work to shame; all you need now is a game to wrap around it...the list goes on.
If, as an indy game developer, you make a few changes to your outlook, you can have a -really incredible time- making a game. Here are a few suggestions:
1. Don't quit your day job. Treat gamemaking as a hobby, something you do for a few hours a night instead of watching TV or playing other games.
2. Bite off less than you can chew. For your first few projects, just keep it insanely simple. No special modes, no added effects--pick one simple aspect of your game, build it, polish it. After you've done this, start tagging all the 'cool' stuff on.
3. Focus on your strengths, but pick something to improve. Maybe take an art class once a week. Maybe buy a book on algorithm optimization. Maybe study user interface design. Maybe take a marketing class. Remember, you're indy, you're small, you need to be able to tackle as many facets of making a game as you can. The more you broaden your skills, the better your games will be.
4. Get a little help from your friends. Once you absolutely -love- what you've created, have your friends try it out. -Listen- to their feedback, swallow your pride, and consider ways to make more people say "Wow!" and fewer people say "Umm..."
5. Don't use the big titles as a meterstick. Do that, and you'll soon find yourself violating suggestion two. Your mantra should be something along the lines of, "I -cannot- compete with Rockstar Games. I -can- make a really fun game that lost of people will like."
6. Do it to have fun. Do it because you -love- making games. Do it because you want to entertain people. If you make your game a labor of love, it -will- be a great game, even if you're the only person who ever sees it as such. Look at it this way: if you make a game that you enjoy so much that you play it more than any other game you own for years, haven't you made the best game you could ever wish for?
There are success stories out there. Other posters to this article have articulated this point quite well. All I'm trying to say is, don't get into indy games for the wrong reason. Do it for yourself, do it to have fun, and you won't regret it. Measure success by self-satisfaction, not by shelf space and bottom lines.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
...this largely mirrors something I posted on an earlier thread (re: the "Hollywoodization" of the games industry and risk aversion). Still, I was hardly the first to point this out.
But there are independent software labels. Take a look at:
Delta Tao
Ambrosia
Beenox
Of course, some of them live hand-to-mouth (i.e. on incomes of less than $100,000 a year) but, so do independent film makers and recording artists.
The fact is that like Hollywood, the games industry is dominated by risk-averse money people who spurn originality in favor of the sure thing. But like Hollywood, the games industry is always willing to leap onto independent innovators (the "My Big Fat Greek Weddings" of games), such as id.
Don't be surprised when yesterday's bold innovators become part of today's problem, that's part of the creative life cycle (just as great innovative scientists become curmudgeons in their old age).
What planet are you on? My mortgage is $1900 a month. Are you saying that I can build a commercially viable game in less than a week?