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?"
Hey! What's wrong with slashdot today? How come there aren't a couple of hundreds of "First posts" here? =/
On to my real post...
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.
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
PDAs are cheap, increasingly ubiquitous, and well capable to running games of the complexity which kept me playing over the last 10 years. X-Com Enemy Unknown anyone?
I think one of the biggest issues may be that no-one (or very few people) hears of the games these independent producers make. It may well be an issue with marketing budgets, and the fact that the big game companies/publishers can saturate the game market with relative ease.
/. could review/announce some independent games and see if that boosts their sales? Then again, /. crowd = linux lovers = open source = no pay for software!
Perhaps good ol'
*ducks* flurry of AOL CDs
Also, the independent games I've seen (I haven't seen many - maybe three) didn't feel nearly as polished. I know they have bugger-all budget and the small touches are really hard to do well, but perhaps that's what it takes to get a lot of people to seperate themselves from their cash. Either that, or invent really addictive games like Civilization or something.
This sig intentionally left bla... dammit!
Who's got the whiteout?
Games like Serious Sam and others show that small, independant teams can still produce a good game that sells well.
This trend has happened in other industries over the years, however. Once any given industry starts to 'mature' and gain critical mass, it becomes harder and harder for smaller outfits or independant entepeneurs to make it. It is a problem of scale. It used to be much cheaper to produce a game, but now the costs are rising to the point where VC's don't want to risk their money on small, unknown outfits.
I don't think the industry is 'fucked', but there are fundamental changes that have been going on over the past few years. This is nothing new, it's just starting to reach a point of critical mass.
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
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.
Software Testing is not politically Correct.
NEW YORK -- People for Ethical Treatment of Software (PETS) announced today that seven more software companies have been added to the group's watch list of companies that regularly practice software testing.
"There is no need for software to be mistreated in this way so that companies like these can market new products." said Ken Grandola, spokesperson for PETS. "Alternative methods of testing these products are available"
According to PETS, these companies force software to undergo lengthy and arduous tests, often without rest, for hours or days at a time. Employees are assigned to "break" the software by any means necessary, and inside sources report that they often joke about "torturing" the software.
"It's no joke," said Grandola. "Innocent programs, from the day the are compiled, are cooped up in tiny rooms and "crashed" for hours on end. They spend the whole lives on dirty, ill-maintained computers, and are unceremoniously deleted when they're not needed anymore".
Grandola said the software is kept in unsanitary conditions and is infested with bugs.
"We know that alternatives to this horror exist." he said, citing industry giant Microsoft Corporation as a company that has become successful without resorting to software testing.
Despite the hype, there are an increasing number of "Garage Games" out there.
A good example is the recently beta-turned-gold "A Tale in the Desert". Its a non-combat online 'builder and skill' team-based egypt sim. No charge for the program itself. Free download, Free trial pay-to-play game.
Without even bothering with a retail presence, new games exist out there. I tend to keep an eye on http://www.betawatcher.com/
Thier are numerious games being developed by small or independent developers, that self sell. Look in the area of stategy turn-based war games and text adventures for alot of them.
As alot of big name game are actually produced by small independant companies, they just use a big name company for production and distribution. For example look at Galactic Civilizations,Black and White, or Rise of Nations all developed by small companies.
The one thing I would agree with is the lack of new/original things, but that happens in everything. People are going to write stuff that they think will sell, good luck trying to find a murder/mystery written totally in poetry form.
In addition once you get big name enough to do what you want, you are generally going to write software in the same. The origins of The Sims, mentioned as original, can be seen if you look back at previous Will Wright games. What would be original is if Will Wright came out with a FPS shooter based in his genre of games.
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
But please, don't pretend that you can turn back time to when competitive computer games
could be produced by a lone independent developer.
Wow. You really bought it all didn't you? Horses, trees, even the dog.
There are thousands of units of independently produced games being sold right this minute. Thousands.
LadyStar - Your Magical and Mysterious Adventure Awaits
you can make good movies very cheaply, same with music, but it is tough to do the same with videogames. notice how good independent movies dont go crazy with special effects but instead have quality acting and story (or at least some bizarre premise). games need to do the same. big problem is that there are a reasonable amount of people willing to watch a movie even if it is filmed on with a handheld and takes place in someones apartment, as long as the story is worthwhile (clerks, etc.) while most folks buy the next gen console/computer for more power better graphics etc. cheap games dont take advantage of that so it is hard for them to work there way into the market.
now here is an idea that may work. take a selection of independently developed games, have those guys get together, or some interested third party, and release the games as a package. make it like the online music services where you can choose which games you want included in the package. they could then monitor which particular games are chosen the most and do further development with those.
philanthropists need to realize there is a need for philanthropy in the first place
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).
Ever since the engine behind Tribes 2 was released for licensing at $99 per programmer, I've thought the entire concept of Garage Games was a rather good one to work with. An incredibly cheap engine license with built-in options for publication once a game is completed, the Torque Game Engine (TGE) is a great option for new game developers.
Not being a coder myself, I did refer a close friend to the engine when he started to burn out on Half-Life and Quake 3 modding, and he's dove right in with attempts to help TGE development move along. There are quite a few people out there around the Garage Games forums looking to put together one game or another, and some of them actually have proposals for things that aren't just Counter-Strike or Quake clones. Take a look at the games Garage Games sells in the store. All were made with TGE, none are shooters.
I can't say strongly enough just how much I think TGE will help revolutionize game production if people actually take notice. The entry cost of development is pretty low, particularly considering that you can develop on Linux and OS X based equipment in addition to Windows. There's a particularly large amount of room in TGE-based game development for Mac-oriented games, as well as Linux.
I'm on Garage Games' site as a designer, but haven't really been able to manage anything that went further than basic documentation. Even if I never accomplish anything, I at least feel glad I had a chance to try. Hopefully a few folks reading this post might give Garage Games and TGE a shot.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
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.
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
I'm curious. How many /. readers out there are authors (of those dead-tree things, not software)? How is this on-topic? Well, writing software for a living is similar to writing novels. There are some number of well-known big-money publishers out there, and there are a larger number of not-well-known shops which occasionally produce hits, and then thare are independants.
If you're an author, you can choose to:
(a) Write what you believe. If you choose this path, you will have to have a Real Job (TM) to pay for things like food and shelter. You may find that the amount of time and energy you have to write varies with your Job and Family influence. That means, you will be at it for many years before finishing anything, and get very little sleep.
(b) Write what will sell. Many authors take this route. Find a genre you kindof-like, look at the slop that's on the shelf, write something that feels much the same. Chances are, one of the middleweight publishers will buy it and sell it direct to the bargin bin. You're writing (good practice) and making enough money to pay for food OR shelter, so only a semi-decent Job (TM) is needed. Your Family might actually see you.
(c) Write what they tell you. This usually only happens once you've managed (a) or (b). You get hired or contracted by a Big Corporate Entity (TM) and they say "We need you to write a by next Quarter." In this mode, you write to whatever specs they give you and churn out a product which will be pushed into the market. It offers the distinction of being a Real Job (TM) all by itself, but as with any other Job, you have are bound by the Chains of Command, and have a Boss.
It seems to me that software development has also reached that place. It's usually impossible for a single person to break into the market, but if a small group gets together they have to face the three choices above. Let's face it... we ALL want to write the thing that's in our head. We're all sure it's really cool, and that other people would like it too (and maybe even pay for it). But we all also have to eat too, and have a place for our computers to stay in out of the rain.
Once upon a time, you used to be able to get a job by just going to the place you wanted to work and being persistant. Nowadays, that gets you thrown in jail for loitering and/or harassment. How do unknown game developers get a foot in the door these days?
WWJC?
Both of these previous busts have been marked by a clear shift in the central location of game production. In the Atari era video games were centered in the US. When they busted, the industry centered in Japan, based on trans-Pacific marketing (Nintendo). When Nintendo busted after the SNES, it realligned again to support both US (GTA3) and Japanese (FFX) development, with little focus on worldwide marketing on the whole. (Let's face it, most of the deeply Japanese titles for Sony systems are just quietly released here without fanfaire, on the assumption that the fans of Japanese-style games will find them on their own).
My guess, then, is that what we'll see is a shift towards European developers, particularly as the EU and the Euro consolidates Europe and makes it possible for Europe as a whole to host a power-developer.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
Greg's post was good, but I think this is currently "conventional wisdom". He simply stated what everybody has been feeling for the past couple of years. The point that this kind of thinking will change the industry is correct.
I don't want to turn this post into a big sales job, but GarageGames IS a label for indies. If you haven't heard from us yet, you soon will. I was the founder of Dynamix, a Sierra label, and got fed up with large corporate control. Myself and a few of the best technologists felt the way Greg does three years ago, but we did something about it. We leveraged our position at Sierra to get control and ownership of the code behind Tribes 2, and started selling it for $100 per programmer as the Torque Game Engine. Eighteen months since we sold our first engine, we have amassed a very large and active development community, and have started selling games via ESD.
We do anything we can to help indies: be it cheap, powerful, cross platform technology with an extremely liberal license; team building; or publishing. We only created the publishing arm out of necessity, and give 65% royalties, do not take box rights, or take any claim on your IP. Of the first three titles that we published on-line, we have gotten box deals for two of them (even though you do not give us your box rights, we can help you get your deal).
Anyway, enough about GG. The point is, we are on the front line of change in the industry. It is my absolute belief that making a game is much more like being in a rock band than making a movie, i.e. three to five guys that are very good at what they do can make absolutley great games. You can make games that will change the industry. If you think you need to compete on the number of 3D models, or amount of non-interactive "movie" between interactive areas, or number of mo-cap moves, then you will fail. However, if you concentrate on pure game play, concept, and FUN, then you will win.
Distribution for these good games will appear. The big publishers are moving toward larger and larger games, leaving behind nice "little" niches and markets that others will move in to fill. Box distribution is not going away any time soon, and it will continue to look for good titles. Not all of the titles can be shovel ware from Russia published by highly controlling value publishers. The market will find a way. People want to play fun games, developers want to to make fun games, and it is inevitable that they find a way to meet.
Jeff Tunnell
www.garagegames.com Independent Games