Slashdot Mirror
Indie Game Devs Should Give Up
Red Herring is covering an indie game panel held this week at E3, at which Warren Spector essentially told independent game developers to just give up now. From the article: "Fellow panelists echoed Mr. Spector's sentiments, telling a room full of game company representatives, industry consultants, and members of the media that the path to entering the $7-billion market is fraught with more pitfalls than Tomb Raider. While opportunities do exist, small companies and startups find it difficult to secure funding and distribution for their work. They often have to deal with past projects that pigeonhole them and potentially hamper future expansion."
All your game industry are belong to us.
You have no change to survive make your time.
No, they should not.
Creativity is vital, and an indi dev gets more lattitude than any shop dev would. Hopefully the big shops will be less afraid and buy indie title rights (funding the dev for their next title) and enhance it into mainstream.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Certainly didn't stop PopCap... ;)
I notice all the games he's been involved with suck. Perhaps he should get back to "producing" something else, and let games designers and coders do whatever they feel like doing. The new, groundbreaking games of the future certainly aren't going to come from some twat with a beard and a suit.
At least, that's my perception. You may have enjoyed the Wing Commander series of games.
If Indie companies want to compete with the big boys, dont try to do so as a "big boy" do so as an Indie. You dont need huge ammounts of funding to make games. If you have the talent and the ideas, then make games. Start small, self publish and re-invest in your company until it has grown until you can finance the projects you want to make. Have games you make, which you make money and hone your skills, be your stepping stones to a blockbuster, not VC funding.
Why not expand that to other areas... like music, sports and movies? Countless people want to be make it and become a professional musician, athlete, actor, etc.
I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that few ever make it to such a level in such fields, but should that prevent a person from trying? Absolutely not? If people don't at least try to make good on their dreams they've got zero chance of making it... they just have to be realistic and recognize that they may not make it and have a backup plan... like an English or Communications major so that they can play football in college.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Looking at where the game market is heading in terms of PC, PS3, and XBox360... more is better. People want their pretty graphics, isn't that the whole point of the PS3? HD this, Bluray that, massive res, cool lighting, explosions, gore...
Except all of this content doesn't just magically appear when the hardware is made. Someone has to make it. And that someone has to be paid. So at this point, the entry into the big name game market is similar to the entry into the big name movie market. If you want to push out a blockbuster title in either industry, you have to put down the big bucks.
Luckily... with the PC and Wii market, there is a chance for indy developers to make cheaper title that are still fun, similar to the small indy movie developers. It won't be huge in terms of special effects and big name actors, but it's still got a chance to be good. Good movies do not require millions upon millions of dollars, and the same with games.
The sooner people realize a good game doesn't need great graphics (like how good movies don't need great special effects), the easier the lives of the indy guys.
If you actually RTFA, you see that he's specifically saying that indies shouldn't try to work with existing publishers like EA. He's not telling indies to give up entirely.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
...that indie game devs stand to make _more_ money than those working at game companies.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/8/14
Great article.
You may have a hand for sketches; put this to use in making creative game content. You may have an eye for scene; use this to construct compelling environments. You may have a knack for math and physics; use this to enhance your engine design. Basically, know what it is that you do well, and do it well. Yeah, "duh"--but it's very, very easy to lose sight of this once you get elbow-deep into game development. Your strengths can act as a catalyst to help you get through the more tedious parts of game development.
That said, know and accept your limitations. Mine is time management; I'm absolutely miserable at keeping on schedule, and it shows in the fact that I've been sitting on a half-finished tech demo for the past couple months. If art isn't your strong suit, avoid making games people expect to be "pretty", and do something novel with words or physics instead. If you can't write dialogue to save your life, don't make a story-driven RPG.
Finally, and most importantly, make a plan and do your best to stick to it. Avoid feature creep like the plague; it is virtually guaranteed to sink your project. If you think of something cool to add on, make note of it and do it after you finish the current version. Don't bite off more than you can chew; ask yourself what you think you could realistically accomplish in twelve months, then cut that estimate in half. Save your masterpiece for later; get a few basic titles under your belt before you embark on that grand quest. Don't get hung up on any one aspect of the game; if you're constantly unhappy with something, walk away from it for a few weeks, focus on some other part of the game, then come back to it and try again. Don't just dive headlong into making your game. You'll just end up with a spaghetti mess of nothing particularly good. (Of course, once again, I could benefit from a bit more of my own medicine, but I digress. Do as I say...)
You're never going to be able to go toe-to-toe with the Big Boys and win. You stand just as much of a chance as running faster than a Ferarri in a 100-meter dash. Instead, poke around and find one of the many, many, many niches that the Big Boys simply don't cater to. Remember, though they'll beat you at their own game, they're not interested in anything that won't make them lots and lots of money; if they don't even show up for the game, you've got a real chance at winning. You'll never beat them at making a realistic football game. You can bypass them entirely by making a wacky football game with exaggerated physics, corny sounds, and goofy images. If people like playing it, you'll be in business--regardless of whether or not it has AAA production values!
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Give up now! You cannot overcome the intertia of middle management! Twelve publishers passed on Harry Potter! Disney passed on Lord of the Rings! Skeptics always become middle managers and when they say "it'll never work" they are ALWAYS WRONG.
Once success is achieved the cynics and the skeptics sneer with open contempt at the new ideas and the people who build them. Nothing turns my stomach more than the entitlement attitude of tall dollars. The arrogance is so repulsive there are few words to describe it. Business builds walls around the "free market" and then tells everyone how fucking stupid they are for not being able to figure out how to be an "entrepreneur."
The fact is we, as a society, HATE ENTREPRENEURS and we do EVERYTHING WE CAN POSSIBLY DO to THWART and DEFEAT THEM. They're either "geeks" or "nerds" or circus acts on reality television after they got fired and laughed at on the other reality show.
It makes me fucking sick. Congratulations, gentlemen. The game industry sucks ass. You got exactly what you wanted.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Dear Mr Warren Spector
Please die in a fire.
Thanks,
indy devs.
Really, this is like the big movie companies telling small indie movie producers that they don't have a shot in hell at getting a huge movie distribution deal. Duh. Of course the barriers to entry are monumental, but there are great indie films coming out all the time. Occasionally one will hit the radar of the big time and get picked up, but generally it is under recognized.
However, indie film directors don't make films with the intent of securing a huge deal, they make them because they love the art. I assume the indie game producers think the same thing: I make games because I love the craft. If I happen to hit a big success, great... but it's not my driving motivation.
Just an indication that the people on the panel are now tuned to business ideals, vs. the craft. Not surprising or unexpected, but still myopic. Fred.
Where were you when I needed you, Warren!
Shut the fuck up. There are many good indy games out there. Some of them even gain a fair amount of distribution. I like Marble Blast, I like Oasis, I like Bridge Builder. I don't care is Spector doesn't think things like that are worthwhile, I like them, I bought them.
There's room in the market for all kind of games. There's room for multi-million dollar blockbusters that have tons of good art and music, there's room for simple, quick 2D games. There's room for games so simple you just walk around and shoot monsters, and room for games that are so complex it takes a month to learn to play properly.
Better yet, there's room for all those on one system.
I have a good game system and I regularly play games like Quake 4 that tax the hardware and clearly had tons of effort given to graphics and sound assets. However I also enjoy playing a simple, unintensive game like Oasis.
There's room for both in the market. I encourage the indy developers to keep doing their things. Will you get rich? Probalby not but you'll make people happy, and maybe even make some money along the way. If that's enough for you, don't let some tool who produces as many misses as hits tell you not to do what you love.
from mobygames website:
"Warren Spector received his BS in Speech from Northwestern University "
no kidding!!!
The "casual" game market has expanded substantially over the past few years. Companies like PopCap have been publishing lots of little games and seeing great success with ones like Bookworm and Bejewelled.
Console networks such as Xbox Live are creating new ways for these little games to get into people's houses. Hopefully Nintendo's Wii and the PS3 will offer the same.
Lower development costs also mean lower cost to sell the game. The same goes for distribution - no need for retail packaging and fighting for shelf space.
I had a lot of fun playing Oasis last year. It's a great little strategy/puzzle game. It's great for busy people who don't have time to commit to a large complicated game. I think there is plenty of oppurtunity for this type of developement.
Interestingly enough a developer can make more money if they have a casual game catch on then they would as a salaried slave for EA.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
I don't know, that sounds pretty familiar. Hmm... let's try this:
Fellow panelists echoed this sentiments, telling a room full of scruffy hackers, academics, and professional software developers that moonlight as "free" software hackers that the path to entering the $7-billion market is fraught with more pitfalls than DOS boxes running BBSes. While opportunities for hobbyists do exist, no serious software can be supported by any less than paid programmers working for corporations. Hobbyists often have to deal with past projects that pigeonhole them and potentially hamper future expansion.
I am of the opinion that Free (think freedom) games can do very well in the current climate, assuming that you don't play the same rules as everyone. Games that are simple at their core but allow for easy community extension and are backed with a strong sense of what the eventual story should be, while putting an emphasis on the game actually being fun to play could probably get a sizable following. Sure, you won't make millions and you won't be able to animate the fur of the rats in your film-noir inspired MMORPG revenge game, but you and a bunch of other people might have fun with it.
That's the point of games, to have fun (and maybe learn), right?
What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?
It should be possible to write a program such that you can easily develop a game.
Clickteam makes such products, but those work only on PCs, not consoles or handhelds.
The barrier for entry is almost non existant. Make a game, distribute on the web. Now if you mean the barrier for entry to get somethign distributed in major retailers, yes that's high, but you can just sell your game online if you like. People are used to that kind of thing and it does work. You won't get rich, but then getting rich is not the one and only yardstick of success.
The Internet really is the ultimate equalizer for distribution. Provided what you are selling is something people accept as something that should come from the web, you need nothing else than to get the word out. Look at Red vs Blue. From a free cartoon that a couple people watched online to a huge sensation that sells a bunch of DVDs and other merchandise. They didn't have any ad deals, didn't sign with any publishers, they just made their material available such that anyone with Internet access could get at it (speaking of which I need to order my 4th season DVD).
Didn't Microsoft just tout Xbox Live as a starting point for indie developers to get a foothold in the market?
self publish
On which platform?
Warren Spectors perspective on this subject is entirely one dimensional. He assumes that all Indie developers want to do is makes games so they can strike it rich and be successful.
I develop and publish independant games for fun. I always set the bar as high as possible and I try to create as great a piece of entertainment as I can under my limitations. Human kind did not give birth to entertainment and media to make money. It was formed because people had stories to tell and ideas to share.
So do not tell indie devs to give up. most of them are independant and creating games because they want to push their own ideas into a format they love and share it with an audience. Screw money and success, those are evil anyways.
The iPod and MacOS X?
They're cool. Albeit geeky.
- "I'll probably get modded down for this."
And we all know Game Maker is far superior to The Games Factory :-P
Death by snoo-snoo!
software doesnt need a typical "industry" with marketing and all the massive overhead
it doesnt even need a publisher
make a program with a free dev-environment, that is moderately useful and put in on a website
nothing more to it
Something like Torque?
www.garagegames.com
My UID is prime... is yours?
Independent content authors of any kind have never had bigger opportunities to topple the big guys. Of course, by "topple the big guys" I really mean "become one of the big guys," but that's really the goal anyway.
Three years ago, I had an advice from a ultimately big publisher, responsible of european aquisition:"maybe you can try to do something else than games on PC or console" clearly meaning:"just give up".
Now, we have sold our first half million of PC games. And with a free game released in january, we have one million new player every month. On Gamespy online players, we would always be in the top10, and first in it's gendra: car racing. Our game rank more than 80% on Metacritic. We made our first game with one graphic artist and received 80% on Gamespot. Now, we are offered millions of dollars to develop on console.
I don't say they are wrong to warn you. Today, I would not try to pitch a game based on a an idea to a publisher or to develop a common PC/Console game from scratch. But I think of many ways to start.
You are right to believe in what you believe, or you are wrong. That's just what I wanted to say.
Founder of an indie studio
Or you could use the magic of the internet to only show one screen per person.
Then your game suddenly costs $360 per year for the upgrade from NetZero dial-up to duopoly broadband, and forget about sales to those parents who won't let their minor children use the Internet.
Theres also plenty of types of games where you don't need to splitscreen to have >1 person, like fighting games, party games(You Dont Know Jack is fun for the whole family), bomberman-style games, or any other number of innovative ideas.
I know that. My entire complaint is that fighting games, Mario Party style games, Bomberman style games, etc. almost always remain console exclusives, so end users never find a reason to buy a PC to connect to a TV. This is a chicken and egg scenario (no set-top PCs because no set-top style PC games, and no set-top style PC games because no set-top PCs). How do you suggest that an independent video game developer break this cycle? Does it require coming up with a title that's so attractive that it's worth spending 600 USD on a second PC to set on top of the TV?
"The sooner people realize a good game doesn't need great graphics (like how good movies don't need great special effects), the easier the lives of the indy guys."
I see that pong is the number one game just ahead of oblivion. Go gameplay!
Although I will agree that working with "big" publishers is not smart for indie developers, I wouldn't tell them to "give up", I think the overall message is wrong. Just because big publishers don't want to "waste" their money on an indie title that probably won't gross much money in the mainstream market (and I guarentee you, that's why Spector is saying to drop the idea) doesn't mean you don't have to opportunity to introduce the latest Brain Age.
:)
Oh, you didn't know? Brain Age is technically an indie title. Very small amount of cash went into it, there were a total of 3 (!) programmers (compare that to the usual 20+ on "big" projects) on the staff, and it has grossed a very healthy amount of cash for such a "low profile" project. Granted, Brain Age was lucky enough to be published by Nintendo, but who's to say that the big publishers aren't willing to push indie titles to the main stream? With the Wii, we might even see this, and we've already gotten a glimpse with Live Arcade. If anything, it's starting to become more feasible that indie titles will be available on consoles either through the more simple route of Virtual Console or Live Arcade, or by being published by some risk-taking company.
Indie development is live and well - it can only get better if we push our products to the high standards required by "big" publishers, and at least try to get them published. You never know what can happen if you're persistant enough
He's only saying that because he has not been able to find some sucker to fund his game ideas; he's bitter, pissed off, and burned out.
I don't know about any others but i bought some games from william soleau long long ago. He seems to still be making out ok in his little niche. Looks like a 3+ person operation now. Great little logic puzzles and stuff. Oilcap was one of my favorite DOS games, recently bought a windows version and more from him.
:) I remember his cause i had some logic games that ran in everything from monochrome to svga+ (16 video resolutions on one of em!) very nicely at a time when vga was cutting edge.
:)
The other one i remember was Moraffware who also seems to still be around, tho pretty quiet for awhile it seems. Nonetheless i may buy a CD of his stuff
Very nice stuff from both, glad they are still available, think i'll buy a disk or two for support
Rock on and good luck
Never know what may happen
Online distribution has become pervasive enough that even the BIGGEST names in publishing are looking for content from the smallest of developers, and Warren repeatedly goes off telling the little guy to give up? I agree with some of what he says. A small team hoping to get signed to make the next Half Life or Halo just isn't going to happen, but in reality it's a great time to be a small developer with a good idea.
When Valve announced Steam I'll admit I was skeptical it would be a success, but it certainly has been. The thing is, while development costs of games are undoubtedly skyrocketing with the ever increasing focus on high-end graphics and audio, new distribution avenues are coming available that are, for the first time ever, a potentially viable alternative to obtaining shelf space at K-Mart. Online distribution alone may not yet result in enough revenue to pay for the development of a modern title, but it might be sufficient for a quirky indie game developed on a smaller budget. Heck, Serious Sam was developed for next to nothing and turned out to be a resounding success despite somewhat shoddy graphics, poor audio, and limited distribution. I agree that indie developers are taking a huge risk by attempting to compete with established game developers, but that's not the same as saying they're doomed to failure. It also helps that, like Hollywood, large game developers are now ruled by misguided market research that absolutely prohibits innovation as an unnaceptable risk. Just as Hollywood is seeing the end of the blockbuster era, so too will the game companies eventually realize that gamers aren't all mindless drones intent on buying every new rehash of a tired old idea just because it's made so So And So or because it has a well-rendered half-naked girl as the main character.
Large corporations fear the Indie developer.
They know that this is where the new ideas come from.
So they will do ANYTHING to try and put a roadblock in
the way of indie development. This includes payola and
anti-competitive activities on a massive scale. When that
doesn't work they try and purchase the company, effectively
killing the indie spirit (though sometimes properly rewarding
the founders). This is just rhetoric that attempts to further
the aforementioned agenda.
Never let anyone tell you, you can't do something you want to do.
PC: Typically used with a screen too small to fit four players.
I realized you had to stretch to find something bad about the PC but that's all you could come up with, man that's lame. Four player spit screen is a workaround for a lack of networking, of having to get everyone in front of the same console and same TV. Now that console's are getting true networking you will see a move away from that. The console is moving towards the PC in this regard.
PC: Typically used with a screen too small to fit four players.
... since those games feature high production values. But that doesn't mean indie companies can't make fun games, or make money to boot. They can, and are.
That doesn't make sense at all.
First of all, the indie dev community is alive and well. You'll find most of them working on web games: from larger houses such as GameHouse and PopCap, to your Garage Games, Reflexive Entertainment, etc. You can play a lot of these games at sites like http://games.msn.com/ http://games.yahoo.com/ http://www.realarcade.com/ and more.
Most of the games they make are single-player, but some can be multiplayer. And you're an idiot if you think that all multiplayer games must require broadband (as you alluded to in another comment).
As for getting on consoles, MS is leading the way with Xbox Live Arcade, where you can find a number of games by indie titles. And they're selling quite well. Both Nintendo and Sony are hinting towards having downloadable games to consoles as well, although it's still unknown whether they are welcoming indie developers the same way. I would imagine they have to, and that would be a good thing.
Now, if you're lamenting that an indie developer is never going to be able to create the next Halo or Madden title, then that's probably true
Once the indie developers start getting larger and have more capital, then you will see them start creating more traditional console titles. They'll work with the platform companies in the usual way, so they're more like regular developers now.
-- jchenx
I don't know exactly who Mr. Spector is, but I'm not big on MBA-types. They try to turn every process into an assembly line. Great games have evolved into being, they aren't merely pre-concieved - chess, poker, baseball, Super Mario Bros., you name it.
Face it, you can't create the next shooter smashhit with a small budget. For that, you need a LOT of good coders, good artists, good modellers, good ... everything.
Yes, you could in theory do it as an indie project. But the time it would take definitly kicks you out of the loop. By the time you're ready for beta, the development of technology went past you.
As an indi dev, your chance is elsewhere. Aside of the mainstream market. So instead of competing with the studios that have more money than you'll ever see, go into the less overclaimed areas. Yes, the market for strategy and adventure is way smaller than the one for shooters and RTS.
But the competition is smaller too!
Also, one of your advantages is that you can take a risk. You don't have shareholders breathing down your neck that call it a failure (and call for your head) if you only made a bit more than the break even. EA can't really take a risk. They can't take a cool sounding idea and try it. If it bombs, the person responsible for it can take his hat. Will he risk it? Not in this life! He'll settle for the sequel of a hit.
Here's your slot. Breaking even is quite doable, if you don't try to overdo it. The "risk" I mean is in the topic. It's not a financial one. Don't stretch your purse too much. There is actually a market for "lunch break games". Simple, easy games that can be played right from the CD that don't require much in terms of sophisticated graphics or level design. There's a market for party games, also something that neither requires any flashy eye candy nor 200 fps.
What you need is a good idea. Yes, of course your idea will be coped by the studios. But you made the first one, that's why it will sell.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Dear Mr. Spector,
Please quit projecting your own impotence and frustration with the game industry on the rest of us. As a matter of fact, please refrain from talking until you have a game that is relevant. Yes I know you worked at Origin. Yes those *were* some stone-cold classic games. Yes, it was a long time ago.
You have the worst relevancy to inane banter ratio in the industry since, well...you're pretty much the worst. If I had a nickel for every interview I read that had you spouting about "emergent gameplay"...as I played Deus Ex: IW I kept waiting for a good game to "emerge."
There are so many examples of indies making great strides in Hollywood, the music business, publishing and technology- I don't know where to begin and I am completely at a loss for words.
Either way you need to be gagged badly.
Thanks and shut up,
Me.
P.S. Care to meet up for some Counter Strike later? I know it wasn't made with the Deus Ex SDK, but you understand, right?
Four player spit screen
Four player != split screen. Bomberman takes four players, but it doesn't need to split the screen, as the fixed camera shows the whole arena. Likewise, fighting games put 2 to 4 players in one shared view.
is a workaround for a lack of networking
If a family owns one PC, why should it need to buy three more PCs to play Bomberman?
How about putting "CHECK OUT MY NeW GAME!" link in your sig on slashdot and posting in every single videogame discussion. You get traffic, trust me.
I've tried that, but then people started foeing me for being "that guy who talks about Luminesweeper in every freakin' thread that mentions the DS or PSP".
The barrier for entry is almost non existant. Make a game, distribute on the web.
So how does one handle multiplayer in such a game if most PCs aren't connected to a monitor large enough for multiple players? And how can one efficiently handle taking the game proprietary and charging for it, or is there some other revenue stream?
you need nothing else than to get the word out.
Where can I find ways to start a marketing effort without sounding spammy?
Console games are great for party games, since you've got that "10 foot experience" thing going for you. You can do things like split-screen, or have everyone share the same viewpoint. What DOESN'T work well for console platforms are games which have to have a lot of detail, such as many RTS or strategy games, or require a fine-tuned control scheme (mice are more accurate than controllers for most people).
Now, if you're serious about wanting to make an awesome party game, but need an entry point to the console industry, then take a look at the other replies here (including mine). There's Xbox Live Arcade and the Virtual Console on Wii. That's certainly a start.
-- jchenx
Better yet, there's room for all those on one system.
So there's room for four genres (1e7 dollar adventures, 2D games, mindless shooters, strategy games) on the PC, but is there room for four players around its display? Or do you expect families to buy four PCs, one for each of the 2 kids, their friend who came over to visit, and a gamer parent, and LAN them?
I develop and publish independant games for fun.
So do I, but I want to move out of my parents' basement.
Sounds like you have a game design issue, which can't really be solved on the PC platform.
On which platform available to independent developers is such a design feasible? If not the PC, then which?
But I don't know why you're using this to debate that indie devs are screwed, since there are many indie titles for the PC that aren't party games.
I grew up playing party games throughout high school and college. The last first-person shooter I got into was Goldeneye. I tried Quake III and didn't like it.
Now, if you're serious about wanting to make an awesome party game, but need an entry point to the console industry [...] There's Xbox Live Arcade and the Virtual Console on Wii. That's certainly a start.
I'm looking forward to Wii and its business model, but NOA has historically been a stickler about who can become a licensed developer, requiring a business and marketing plan and an approved title before developers can even begin to investigate the technical aspects of the platform.
If you look at his career Warren has always been a corporate guy who has never tied to go it himself. he has always worked for someone else. at this point he's making an effort but is nevertheless a Steam cheerleader. does he know what the fsck he is talking about from a philosophical, cultural, or *independent* perspective? he sure as hell doesn't.
frankly, he sounds more like an old man whining that he could have made more money.
Homepage
Obiter Ludens Game Blog
I'm looking forward to Wii and its business model, but NOA has historically been a stickler about who can become a licensed developer, requiring a business and marketing plan and an approved title before developers can even begin to investigate the technical aspects of the platform.
:P
... and if that seems too hard for you, then bite the bullet and just interview for an existing, well-established developer. Lots are hiring.
Gee whiz, a console maker wanting to make sure potential developers are serious before they invest time and money in supporting them? Go figure!
Now I don't know the specific details of what you're saying, but even if it's true, that sounds fairly reasonable. SDKs are not cheap. Even if you pay for one, there are support costs (calls from developers wanting answers to questions on how X works), as well as all the fees associated with getting a game actually launched to shelves (contracts, lawyer fees, game certification costs, etc.). None of the platform companies are in the business of letting EVERY Joe Gamer who-thinks-they-have-a-cool-idea an easy way to get their game launched.
Now the best place for Joe Gamer to get involved is with PC games, where lots of titles are readibly moddable. But for it to work well, the developers have to build in modability (everything in the game is scriptable, extensible, etc.). On top of that, having it on PC makes it much easier for gamers to trade mods. This CAN be done in the console space, but it's much harder since it's a closed environment. However things like the Xbox Live Marketplace were supposed to be eventually host user-created content, so that may be something that comes to console gaming in the not-too-distant future.
Going back to indie development on a totally original game, any platform you try to take your game to, whether it be a console, or an established games website (like Yahoo or MSN Games, or Real Arcade), is going to want to have proof that you will be a good partner to work with. Websites are probably going to be less demanding than the console companies. So if you're serious about getting into the business, even as an indie developer, I'd start there.
-- jchenx
With good reason, considering the commonly held belief that a key component of the 80s game crash was the glut of crap games due to unfettered console development access (no idea if it's true or not, but it's what people believe). Microsoft is also particular about who they license, but they're at least open to the idea of indies on XBLA. What the article said about companies having such a backlog of ideas that they can never get through holds just as true for XBLA game proposals.
However, all hope is not lost. You just need to be smart about how you go about it. For example, go get yourself a license to one of GarageGame's engines, build your game for PC, and it's a simple matter to get a 360 license for the engine (minimal to no porting required, though you'll probably still have work to do to integrate Live functionality) if you do happen to make it through the XBLA process. You're much better off going in with a completed game (or at least a very compelling demo). If all you have is an idea, or even a written down plan but no working demo, just forget about it.
Not only that, but the people who are willing to try something new in terms of controls are probably also going to be more willing to try something from a new company that they have never heard of.
I think the same thing holds true, to a lesser extent, to the Nintendo DS. The success of unorthodox games like Phoenix Wright, Trauma Center, Nintendogs, Electroplankton (I don't actually know if it did well, but I liked it), and Brain Age shows there are new gameplay innovations to be made, and the people who make them will likely be rewarded for those efforts.
I mean, I suppose an indie developer could try to get something onto the PS3 and the X360, but I don't think there are many new genres to be found with the regular control scheme, nor do I think that there are many "new" gameplay innovations left to be found. I think, at best, what is mostly left in terms of innovation on a regular controller are tweaks to pre-existing forms of gameplay, and thus my belief that everything that will likely succeed for those systems will simply be the ones with the most smooth edges and polish, and most of the time it is the big companies who have the resources to provide that polish.
I think that with the Wii, you have the opportunity to do something totally and completely different than anyone has ever done before in terms of gameplay or functionality. That, I believe is where an Indie publisher can make their mark, because it has the potential to be the ONLY game in its' genre, instead of Console FPS #452 trying to fight its' way into an oversatured genre.
When I worked at Lionhead, I used to get this lecture every year or so. I even heard it from peter before I started work there. It goes like this:
Indie gaming is doomed
you wont sell any copies
nobody wants small games
you will end up penniless and hungry
It always was, always is, and probably always will be total bullshit.
Yet peter (and now warren) crank it out for one very good reason
THEY DONT WANT TO LOSE GOOD STAFF
the best devs you have are the ones most likely to go start their own company. Lionhead has lost its entire R&D team and most of its good coders (fable team excepted) in the last 6 months, mainly to start their own companies. Peter has always tried to tell people 'for their own good' not to try it.
Funnily enough, when I left them, my indie game (www.democracygame.com) was successfull and profitable, and pays my living expenses right now. In contrast, Black and White 2 and The Movies made way less than they cost to make.
I think its desperately sad that 'big name designers' who once were passionate about making great games now go OUT OF THEIR WAY to ensure other people dont do what they did.
Fuck em.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
That's just bull. Without indie developers there won't be interesting, innovative, fun games to play. Either that guy is insane or his greedy 3vil twin has taken control.
-Seeing the problem is ½ of solution-
Alien Hominid.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I've read rumor that Nintendo will offer its Wii SDK at a cost level an order of magnitude less than those of Xbox and Playstation. I've spent the last hour looking for some contact point at Nintendo where I could sign up. While I would expect there to be some barrier to coming onboard, I expect neither free support nor marketing, just the benefit of being able to submit my offering into their QA/Alpha/Beta channels. While that cost is not insignificant, the potential return to the console maker is, as you point out, HUGE. There's been a lot of banter about the stagnation of the console gaming platform/games/experience. Too pricey. Nothing new in games. Yet it's clear from the flash/flex/web gaming market that there really are novel and interesting new ideas out there.
;)
The reliability defecit of the PS2 soured me on consoles in general. Sony's lack of response to my enquiries about development soured me on Sony specifically. My Son would not share those biases so it was probable that a PS3 was in our future. Wii. I *love* the idea of off-your-ass gaming. The eye-toy was a step in that direction but suffered from technical compromises. So long as his PS2 continues to function -an unknown quantity considering our previous 3 PS2's reliability- his favorite Playstation games will continue to function. Virtual Console and the old Nintendo games we already have make the Wii an interesting propostion. Its wiimote and nunchuck make it, in my mind, a very probable scenario. I'd have bought one, sight unseen, today if it were possible.
I think gaming in the physical space, similar to first-person VR but second-person by-proxy, that the Wii will offer is a huge step forward in gaming evolution. It has the potential to actually make a golf or baseball simulation accurate. fun. At maturity I can imagine specialized controllers that might simulate motorcycle handlebars/throttle/clutch/brakes. Now, how much fun might that be?!
The one trick I think Nintendo is missing is multiPOV. While recent effort has been towards distributed, client/server, architecure (socomm is a good example) where each player has his own console and video, this suffers latency that realtime simulations (a la motorcycle madness) must compromise to overcome. Split-screen has its own limitation. Multi-head console play, with wireless motion sensing controllers set the stage for ad-hoc game play more similar to basement D&D of a bygone age. Imagine my monitor showing the ball as it's pitched and your monitor showing the scene from the POV of the pitcher. The game has to calculate the physics of all that in any case, it's the graphics generation that's the holdup. Few C/S environments will allow realtime depth for this. IMO.
In any case... I look forward to our new Nintendo Overlords... blah blah blah
>>realtime simulations (a la motorcycle madness)
In typical Microsoft fashion, multiplayer required that you have as many original game CD's as players. How often does that happen? It's a shit simulation to begin with so we never met anyone who also had this game. Never able to verify that multi-player actually worked. Knowing Microsoft, it's reasonable to presume that it does not, or that it works very badly.
Though I'm sure Microsoft Support has a script to handle calls about that.
With that and my experience with Flight Simulator, I resolved to *never* have an Xbox.
YMMV.
But it's the antithesis of ad-hoc multiplayer game play that I see in Wii.
Her work revolved around a Hero. Bill G of Microsoft was never the only factor and at times not even the deciding factor. Rand, to my rememberance, always put the Hero in a moral and ethical situation to which he/she responded gracefully. That's not something you can say about Gates specifically, nor Microsoft generally.
IOW- bullpuckey
Really, this is like the big movie companies telling small indie movie producers that they don't have a shot in hell at getting a huge movie distribution deal. Duh. Of course the barriers to entry are monumental, but there are great indie films coming out all the time. Occasionally one will hit the radar of the big time and get picked up, but generally it is under recognized.
If this were a publisher speaking, I'd agree. However, it's developers, who're having their own tough times getting their games funded.
>>Not only that, but the people who are willing to try something new in terms of
>>controls are probably also going to be more willing to try something from a new
>>company that they have never heard
That's a critical factor. Given that some of the indie work might appear on Virtual Console, the SDK (and whatever its inherent costs) becomes a loss-leader. Say Xbox offers a total of 1500 games. Say PS3 offers a total of 2000 games. Say Wii offers a total of 23000 games.
To which would you subscribe?
The sheer momentum is an attraction that closed-shop platforms cannot gain.
There's a fair amount of anecdotal evidence (http://www.monroeworld.com/forums/showthread.php? t=1561) that the prices dropping set the stage fotr the next generation of consoles. The glut of consoles, not games, provided a critical mass of adoption in the home where it was then accepted that 'everyone had an NES'. The market settled on a few winners (dropping the TI, Commodore and other bit players) in favor of Nintendo and Sega, and drove Sony's entrance into the market.
IMO, it was not a crash so much as an adjustment. A consolidation.
I doubt that it was in any way influenced by the quality or number of the games themselves. Generally, increased choice drives increased adoption, no matter the pin-point exceptions.
Work on titles that fit your platform and wait until you've got more ressources before you branch out.
The problem is that if I make titles that are too different from the genre that I eventually want to make, then publishers will tend to typecast my firm. From the article:
If you were planning on making a PC game as a way of obtaining funding for a subsequent family party game, which genre would you choose?Now the best place for Joe Gamer to get involved is with PC games
So how do I make and sell a party style PC game that supports four players on one monitor if the markets for 1. PC games that can be played on a TV-size monitor and 2. PC games that can be played on four PCs owned by a single family are so tiny?
bite the bullet and just interview for an existing, well-established developer. Lots are hiring.
I've wanted to do that, but none have been even close to willing to advance me the money for relocation from my parents' basement in Fort Wayne, Indiana, to the State of Washington.
I'm glad you replied, because I did want to talk about opening up platforms, but didn't know if anyone would be interested in hearing my thoughts.
... not because the platform companies WANT to lock users out, but due to technical and cost limitations. Some of the issues, and potentially how they can be solved (especially in this generation) ...
...
I totally agree that the PC market is an example that opening up games turned out to be a BOON for developers. Take World of Warcraft for example. Blizzard did a fantastic job of letting modders do almost anything they wanted to the UI. The community has created an amazing set of new features that Blizzard developers didn't have to spend one minute on (aside from making the interface moddable). Morrowind and Oblivion, by Bethesda, are also great examples of extremely moddable games. As for original games, Counter-Strike is probably the best example (yes it's a "mod" of HL, but it's essentially a whole game itself).
So I'm a big fan of user-created content. However, the way I see it, the barrier to entry for consoles is high
1) Controller interface sucks for creating content/writing code: Newer consoles now allow you to plug in a USB keyboard and mouse, so this is now solved
2) Need place to store content: Arguably, memory cards weren't large enough to hold user-created content. But now that hard-drives are becoming fairly standard, this is no longer an issue
3) No easy way to allow users to share content: This is tricky, since platform companies don't want their box to be hackable/moddable, so this needs to be secure (can't just be a matter of letting users stick discs in the system that run arbitrary code). Fortunately with central online services and marketplaces, such as Xbox Live Marketplace and what Sony demoed for the PS3, this is solved. Let users create in-game content and then share it on Marketplace. Heck, they could even set up a mini-economy, where gamers use points to buy/sell items. I think MS talked a lot about this at E3 last year, although most gamers seemed not to care. But that leads me to the next issue
4) Average CONSOLE gamer doesn't seem to care about creating their own content: This is a tricky one. I would agree that the average console gamer is probably less technical than your average PC gamer, so they're not apt to dive into script languages and such. But that can be solved by creating better tools. Spore is a great example of this. From what we've all seen, it looks dead easy to create fairly complex creatures and environments.
So modding console games? I'm totally for it, and I think it's now possible with the newest generation of consoles. But is it going to happen right away? Of course not. Sony and Nintendo are still focused on launching their systems (and they NEED to be). Ironically, MS might be leading the way here. I've heard that Viva Pinata will have user-created content that's sharable on Marketplace, but we'll see if that actually happens. It would be really cool if it did, and the nex
-- jchenx
This game is coded by one person, a few volentary artists. Look for yourself at what has been achieved so far: http://fl-tw.com/
So how do I make and sell a party style PC game that supports four players on one monitor if the markets for 1. PC games that can be played on a TV-size monitor and 2. PC games that can be played on four PCs owned by a single family are so tiny?
... there are a ton of them on free web game sites)
You don't. The same reason you don't make highly detailed games requiring fine control (ie a mouse) on consoles.
If you want to make a party style game that supports 4 players on one monitor, then you have to bite the bullet and try to find a way to break into the console games business. As I've mentioned before, the best way to do this currently is via Xbox Live Arcade. But apparently they are inundated with requests from hundreds of developers, so it won't be easy to get their attention unless you have a killer game. In the future, there may be a similar option with Sony and Nintendo's consoles, although you may want to start making phone calls now.
And if you don't have a killer game in the first place, then why bother? There isn't a market for mediocre/poor console games done by an indie/amature developer. (Well I wouldn't pay for one
I've wanted to do that, but none have been even close to willing to advance me the money for relocation from my parents' basement in Fort Wayne, Indiana, to the State of Washington.
I hope you're joking. But if you're serious and you're still just a kid dreaming to get into the games industry, what you need to do is focus on your skills and studies. Get into a decent college, learn CS the right way, and in your spare time, work on modding existing games. Then when you graduate, interview at a games company somewhere and get your foot in the door. Once you've got experience and made enough contacts, THEN you can think about trying to develop and publish your own titles.
-- jchenx
Does this also spill into other specialties? Should I give up trying to take on Gates with my "Joe's OS" and "Joe's Office"? I was just about to come out with my genealogy product, called "Joe Mamma".
Table-ized A.I.
Ever heard of multimonitor?
Most PC owners haven't, and they're not willing to buy a second monitor and replace the video card just to run a 4-player party game.
and if you did have the computer plugged into a TV
If most PC owners had the computer plugged into a TV, then there wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that most PC owners are not willing to move the computer to the TV room every time the kids want to get together and play the game and then move it back to the home office when they are done.
Get into a decent college, learn CS the right way, and in your spare time, work on modding existing games.
I have a degree but no job. Which games do you suggest I mod which run on an 0.866 GHz PC with 128 MB of RAM?
interview at a games company somewhere
There are no games companies in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Do you suggest that I move? If so, how?
multimonitor is also very useful for things other than multiplayer games, or so I'm told very enthusiastically.
Do casual home PC users tend to do these things that require multiple monitors?
So you're cassually dismissing 5 or more player games? Just what makes 4 the magic number?
Four players is the magic number because players in the market who would play multiplayer party games are accustomed to setting up play dates around the four player limitation of the N64, Dreamcast, GameCube, Xbox, and Xbox 360, and I'm guessing that the reason no multitap accessory came out for any of those five consoles is that four is the magic number for fitting human bodies around a typical living-room television monitor. The PC could overcome this, but then you'd need an even bigger TV.
So no one has a TV anywhere but the living room? My understanding and experience is very contradictory.
So are you claiming that it is viable for an independent developer to make and sell a PC game that depends on having multiple joypads connected to a USB hub connected to a PC connected to a 21 inch or larger display? If so, where should I look next in order to learn how to form a business and marketing plan for this venture?
I think the solution is small market niche games. Back in the 1980s people wrote games and the most successful games sold a fraction of what a disaster sells today. Popcap is a great example of a successful niche player. There are tons of niches, from speciality interests (think about the diversity in games that existed 15-20 years ago), to specialty platforms (why isn't there even one good Solaris game?), to training type games. Small staff, small budgets, limited interests, small sales that easily make a profit.
I don't know why the indies go after general interest titles. There still is not a really good bridge engine on the market. There are something like 18 million people who like to play bridge once per month or more. There are some very untapped markets.
Somehow I feel you're just trolling, but I'll bite ...
I have a degree but no job. Which games do you suggest I mod which run on an 0.866 GHz PC with 128 MB of RAM?
There are lots of older games that run on that hardware. The original Half-Life game did, and that's what the incredibly successful Counter-Strike was based off. So you can start there. Or save up, get a better computer, and try working on more recent titles.
There are no games companies in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Do you suggest that I move? If so, how?
You want me to give you life advice or something? Or did you want people to give you fricking handouts? For most folks, there is no "easy button" for life. Get a job. If you want to go to a place with lots of games companies, save up and move to Washington or California, where there are a lot of them. But only do so if you've actually got skills.
-- jchenx
The high price of transitioning to xbox 360 and PS3 is starting to take its toll on the industry. Things in the gaming business aren't going too well. The big crash is coming.
Do you suggest that I move? If so, how?
Live cheap, save money, and drive once you have enough to live on for 3 months. Set up interviews with the line 'I'll be in the area from [date] until [date]'. If you learn how to do this, it'll help you in life. Actually, you need to learn how to plan things: you're in your 20s.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
>>because most PC multiplayer games are like that
...modem, LAN...connection to other systems * Internet access required for internet play...charges may apply * ...Gaming Zone...web browser..."
;)
;) Some games just *imply* the capability for multiplayer action. I've played some that were buggy but had a great time with them nonetheless (Machine Hunter comes to mind). I don't assume any such support though.
I sit corrected. I only ever bought or played a handful of PC games, most of which were bargain-bin. This one sticks in my mind since nothing about needing another purchase is mentioned on the box. This one I bought at full price when it was fairly new, and I checked it's capabilities closely according to that which was printed on the box.
I'm sitting here looking at the original box.
On the back: " * Wild multiplayer competition - Race with your freinds via LAN, direct modem, or over the Web on the MSN (tm) Gaming Zone."
On the bottom: " Requirements for multiplayer play: *
It seems that the philosophy of Wii is the complete opposite (which I heartily welcome) and that was my main point. Taking a shot at Microsoft was apparantly unwarranted. But you have to admit that I was suckered by their false packaging.
As an aside, this was the one and only time I've ever tried to copy an original game disk and the only time I've ever considered actually downloading a cracked version. Play fair with me and I'll reciprocate. The opposite also stands. But that's me....
>>non-trivial work item
My turn
Adding the protections against re-using the same disk to spawn another player, while supporting TCP/IP play, seems to me to be the non-trivial task as well as an opening toward more buggy behavior, not the other way around.
In any case, the vendor makes this priority decision long before we have the product in our hands. If they advertise multiplayer play they should allow multiplayer play. If that requires another purchase, either in controller or other hardware or subscription or downloadable key or a whole other boxed distribution then that should be apparant from their packaging. And it should be as bug free as to allow 'most' installations to run it without problems.
I was at this panel, and that's not what Warren Spector said at all. I don't have the recordings yet, so I can't get him verbatim. However, it's worth noting that Warren is creating a startup right now, something he said when they asked him to introduce himself; he clearly wouldn't have done that if he believed this was the wrong time. What Mr. Spector actually did say was that this was a difficult time for startups. He gave some brutal truths in particular as surrounds funding. He said that this wasn't a good time for free games, and that anyone making a startup in this climate needed to have a business model built in from day one even if they had a lot of capital to burn.
Yes, he was a bit of a wet blanket, but in a good and common sense fashion. Anyone who took away "indie games should give up" should - if you go from "you can't start a business without a business model" to "you can't start a business," then frankly you specifically cannot.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Wrong.
OSS/Indie gaming will shake the market. Just not right now. One of the most successfull games ever, Counterstrike, is a friggin *freeware* mod. Now imagine an OSS 3D engine like CrystalSpace combined with a tool like Blender. That scares the piss out of publishers like EA.
Who is going to buy Unreal Tournament 2009 when you can build it? Gamingbusiness will be all about services just like the other parts of IT and Media, it will only take longer because leveraging the technology takes more work.
You won't be paying for games or content, you'll be paying for access, maintainance and proactive hack/cheat prevention. And the membership of a professional league. It will be just like sports. I don't have to pay some company to explain to me the rules of soccer, do I? No. But I do need to pay to get access to training and a good stadium in order to play at a certain level. That's how it will be.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
The fact is, having four players under one roof where they aren't all adults isn't that common
I guess I must have a distorted view of the world because the situation in which I was raised "isn't that common".
I am, thanks millions!
Get a job in the video game industry.
What job should I get in order to save up enough money to move to a state that has a video game industry?
If your idea is so hot, why don't you put together a business plan
Short of going back to school to get an MBA, how do you suggest that I or any other aspiring video game developer learn how to write an effective business plan? Is Business Plans Kit for Dummies (ISBN: 0764597949) a recommended book?
as a guy making a game as a hobby, i pay 75$ a month for a server (it would be less if Realmcrafter ran on Linux), i paid 55$ for the Realmcrafter engine. I pay anywhere from 5-50$ for model packs. I have a team of 3 people who work for the promise of future profits someday. total cost over 2 years of dev will be 4k with a recurring costs at just under 1k once we go 'gold' so in order to cover recurring costs we only need 500 subscribers paying 2$ a year. To recover costs, we need them to pay 4$ a year and to make a small profit. We would have to convince 500 subscribers to pay a whopping 5$ a year. more and more the tools needed to make games are in the hands of little guy. the suits are worried and are closing ranks. next they will be telling us that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
I have met with both Spector and Walton (mentioned in the article) and they're right... you can't expect an indie game to be as big UNLESS you get a big publisher which is very hard to do BUT they also said that IF YOU BUILD A DEMO you can WIN.
There's an opportunity right now where you can see Spector and Walton for $90 in Austin... http://txindiegamecon.com/ - why not express your opinions there?
for indie game devs, try starting out with a non comercial, and perhaps even open source model.
You don't, you make whatever games you have to. Eventually you may get to make the game you want to, but not a lot of people get that chance. You can always just make the game you want to, but don't expect it to make you any money (or even have many people play it, period).
I will get marked troll (who cares I'm anonymous)
You disgust me.
On what basis should they advance you enough money to move to washington? Work your ass off and save your money, work at mcdonalds if you have to. When you have enough money to live for a month in washington start interviewing.
If you really wanted to be in Video games, you would make it happen. You wouldn't sit on the slashdot forums bitching because someone hasn't handed your life to you on a silver platter.
I would like to be the first to welcome our new gaming overlords of the VGIAA!!!