Slashdot Mirror
Why There Are No Hit Indie Games
Slate is running an article on why indie games are still such small potatoes in today's game industry. From the article: "In today's movie business, it's possible for an indie film like Napoleon Dynamite to become a sensation. Saw, which cost a mere $1.2 million, grossed 100 times that amount. That just doesn't happen in video games. The average PlayStation 2 game costs about $8 million. Studios often need large development teams--usually 40 or more people--to meet their tight deadlines. They spend money to license everything from comic book heroes to graphics engines. They record A-list actors. And if they burn their own CDs or do their own marketing, costs can really soar."
Also, with movie tie-ins, you have to pay for a license. I'm willing to bet that is out of a lot of open source project's budgets. Some game studios also have exclusive rights to certain movies or characters, which would also stop an open source project using the material faster than you can say "cease and desist."
I got nothin'
Most of today's hits are just new faces on existing game engines. They are only hits because companies spend a lot of money on marketing to convince people that the new game is really something better.
Sure, they may licence new comic book charecters. Or, for sports games, have the latest players names and stats. But, if the game play still is lousy, then ultimately the game is, too. Improving game play costs a lot of money. It's a lot cheaper to try and convince consumers that the product is better than to actually make it better.
This is no different than movie producers. Indie producers simply do not have the resources to market the film or pay high salaries for name recognition. Very often, their product, as an art form, is significantly better than what comes out of Hollywood, but without the marketing machine, it can't reach the critical mass need for public awareness.
Game producers are in the same boat. Just like indie film producers, all of the indie game producers resources go directly into improving the product and not the frills. So, indie game producers can and do produce games that are as good or better than what comes out of the commercial game houses, however, without the ability to market them, they can't reach critical mass, either.
It was probably shot in 3 to 5 weeks. Video games require you to carry those 40 people for months.
The real problem is not the number of people, but that there's no good way to make a low-budget video game. You can make a good movie for very little money by not spending $100 million on special effects and marketing. Video games don't work like that. If you don't spend the money on having good graphics artists, your game looks like crap.
You can sell a movie with a great story and no special effects. You can't sell a game with fantastic game play and crappy graphics and sound - those games were already sold 10-20 years ago.
paintball
My initial reactions to business are usually the same as yours, but you have to remember, without these businesses, the videogames we're discussing don't exist. "Business" represents a lot of people doing a lot of different things. I'm an independant software developer, I work on a contract to contract basis. While I usually consider clients to be bosses of sorts, I'm self-employed. Am I "business?" Do I want your share and the other guys too? Well sure... I'd like to make more money, I'm not a rich man, and it would be nice to travel more and live better.
The left is generally correct in the belief that allowing market forces to work unfettered creates excellent markets, but they will only be optimized along a limited number of parameters, and that business does need to be kept in check if values that don't easily translate into a bottom-line are to be preserved in our society. However, the recurring error of the left is to treat business as a criminal element merely for being business. Like it or not business is the cornerstone of our society. Nobody is employed without it. Food doesn't get grown without it, the internet doesn't exist without it (the internet mind you, the multi-trillion dollar communications infrastructure, not the web, a vague collection of data stored and transmitted on that network) etc. etc. etc. If you make yourself the enemy of business, you're making a pretty powerful enemy. The challenge for the left in the globalization era is to come up with creative approaches to dealing with modern problems that utilize the forces of capitalism without succumbing to their excesses. Seven-times watered down Marxism isn't really serving us very well, and the public rightly finds little resonance in a class debate cloaked in the language of the Industrial Revolution.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Here here. Independant cenema is as expensive as all but the most expensive big-budget games. The better question to ask is "why does independant gaming lack the financial backing and infrastructure of independant cinema, publishing, music, etc.?"
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Seriously, when was the latest "new idea" you saw with regards to gameplay?
Tetris? Lemmings? Command and Conquer? Sim City? Wolfenstein 3d? Elite?
Everything I can think of these days is a variation on the same general idea (other than flight/driving "sims" of course). The last truly interesting and original game concept was over 10 years ago...
Given that, the only real way to distinguish yourself as far as marketing goes, when limited to a fixed number of game themes, is by graphical or audio superiority. This costs money.
Sad really... if someone was to come up with an original (or even, not flogged to death in the past 5 years), entertaining gameplay idea, they'd do well...
Me? I'm waiting for a decent new 2d platformer to come out :D
smash
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
They spend money to license everything from comic book heroes to graphics engines. They record A-list actor
First, indie films are generally somewhat original and mundane ideas. They do not depend on popularity of concept to compensate for lame writing. This measn that indie films do not spend money on licensing. Niether do they generally spend the millions on licensing books and then millions more on rewrites of the script. Often even music is not used due to costs.
Indie films also do not tend to have license technology. The creators use what can be had on the budget. This has become much more sophiticated, but still not what big studios have. As far as actors, many will cut thier pay to scale to work on a indie film. This has lead to some aggrivation when the film is really succesful, as the actors then kick themselves from not negotiating a part of the sales.
In the end an indie film has few if any big name actors, few if any popular characters, shots that are out of focus, lame special effects, and, except in the case where a big studio picks up the picture, no promotion budget.
An indie film is usually high concept, good script, and personal. Given that video games for the most part are about cool special effects, mass murder, and pushing technology, the two do not seem to be comparable.
So, why are they not indie games. Becuase indie films are possible because films can be produced on a low budget and there are a network of indie film houses that will show them, even though they is little money made. Console vendors want to sell games, so why bother with a game that is not going to be blockbuster? Stores want to sell games so why stock games that may not sell. Moviegoers will tolerate out of focus shots, unknown actors, and less than ideal theatres just for the hope to see something slightly original. Will gamers make the same compromises?
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black