Why Game Developers Go Rogue

cliffski writes "Jay Barnson interviews the new crop of indie game developers. How could anybody abandon the steady paychecks, access to the best tools and engines, large teams of skilled colleagues and the glory of working on one of next holiday season's blockbusters for a chance to labor in relative obscurity on tiny, niche titles? Steven Peeler was a senior programmer at Ritual Entertainment. For him, leaving and forming the one-man studio Soldak Entertainment came down to a desire for creative freedom. 'I really wanted to work on an RPG, and Ritual only made shooters,' he says. 'There were some annoying politics going on that was really frustrating, I disagreed with the direction the company was taking, I was really tired of pushy publishers and I just wanted to do my own thing.'"

Comments

Because we can

[Anonymous Coward]

'Nuff said.

Re:Because we can

[twistedsymphony]

It's no different than anyone else who leaves a company to start their own business. Lets play Mad-libs.

Version 1:
"I really wanted to work on Performance Parts, and Auto Parts Company X only made roof-racks and cargo-nets," he says. "There were some annoying politics going on that was really frustrating, I disagreed with the direction the company was taking, I was really tired of pushy investors and I just wanted to do my own thing."

Version 2:
"I really wanted to work on graphics apps, and Software Company Y only made custom data management software," he says. "There were some annoying politics going on that was really frustrating, I disagreed with the direction the company was taking, I was really tired of pushy clients and I just wanted to do my own thing."

Why should we care just because they're a game developer?

Re:Because we can

[mcvos]

Why should we care just because they're a game developer?

The Escapist cares because they're about games. In fact, so is games.slashdot.org. And at the moment, while big game titles are working with multimillion dollar budgets, indie games seem to be thriving. A look inside that part of the industry is certainly interesting.

But why there's no customdatamanagement.slashdot.org, I have no idea.

Re:Because we can

[twistedsymphony]

I realize this is the games section, but my point was more along the lines of the fact that this article is nearly devoid of worthwhile information.

Someone left a company because they were unhappy... Really? I'm shocked.

It's analogous to an article stating that a lot of game developers use cars to drive to work, eat food for energy, and laugh at funny jokes.

Maybe if there was some more interesting details as to the specific situation, or some kind of examples of the corporate politics that lead to game design elements that we the gamers could see in the end result it would be worth reading but, c'mon...

Re:Because we can

[CauseWithoutARebel]

The article's not about why they went indie, it's about people who went indie. Why they went indie is one small component of an article that also addresses some of the challenges they faced in the transformation and how well it has or hasn't worked for them.

Did you even RTFA or are you just griping for the sake of it?

Re:Because we can

[Machtyn]

I think the interest is along the same lines of:
Why Actors Go Indie Films
How could anybody abandon the multi-million dollar paychecks, access to the best directors and writers, large teams of skilled colleagues and the glory of working on one of next holiday season's blockbusters for a chance to labor in relative obscurity on tiny, niche titles?

An example would be Samuel L Jackson in Snakes On A Plane. (Because there are *** snakes on *** planes.)

Re:Because we can

[hairyfeet]

If there are any indie developers here,can I add to a little wish list? Please?

How about a nice little indie FPS,please? Hell,you don't HAVE to have the uber super Crysis thing going,a lot of buds and I still are quite happy playing Soldier of Fortune I. What we are tired of is the same damned stupid as a stump bad guys,zero realism,cookie cutter WW2 crap. I want a game where the bad guys are smart enough to make me work for it. I want a game where I can shoot the gun out of the bad guys hand,or make him have to limp because I put one in his kneecap. And some really good sniping,as opposed to shooting around a guy half a dozen times while he stands there would be nice too.

How about some horror FPS like Nosferatu? Or maybe an end of the world and I have to fight my fellow survivors kind of thing? The point is there are a lot of ways to make a FPS stand out that don't involve monster graphics cards. But all we get from the big boys with the exception of one or two titles are the same old tired themes over and over. I would personally love to try and buy something new and fresh,even with SOF I or II graphics. Because as the Wii has shown us,it is about the fun. And the last half dozen games I've demoed are anything BUT fun,just more stupid AI wrapped in flashy graphics. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV. And if you'll excuse me I'm going to play some SOF II or NOLF II. Now THOSE were fun.

Re:Because we can

[KDR_11k]

A problem with that genre is that the graphical quality is very visible, you can't hide lower polygon counts behind greater view distances or fast movement, the camera can be anywhere and the player will focus on the enemies. It's one of the harder genres to get to the point where the player doesn't have his suspension of disbelief disrupted by some glaring graphical error and thus not really suitable for indie development which usually means less development resources.

Re:Because we can

[hairyfeet]

Um,you kinda missed my whole point there. Have you ever played Soldier of Fortune 1? The characters are very squared off and blocky,same with NOLF 1. But because they added new gameplay elements in novel ways(SOF uses the GHOUL system,which basically means you shoot them in the hand they drop the gun,foot they hop,etc and NOLF added a cool cheesy 60's spy movie gadgets and humor) they are still a blast to play,even to this day.

There are a LOT of guys out there that are sick to death of cutter cutter "ooh,pretty" FPS games where it is the SSDD. They are all "be the US military in (insert war or police action),use the same selection of weapons and shoot guys that are dumb as stumps". It has just become take the safe route and do Call of Duty or Medal of Honor X. But I still know plenty of guys that play the older games because they have unique gameplay and are simply fun. I even know a guy that fires up Postal 2 at least once a week even though its graphics and story were lousy even when it came out. Why? Because it is FUN.

And if an indie developer is worried about direction,make a simple one level demo and share it with the gaming forums,telling them ahead of time that the game isn't about graphics but bringing back the fun to FPS. I'm sure he'd find a ton of guys like me that would be happy to play test it and give him new ideas,because in the end all the eye candy doesn't mean squat if it isn't FUN. And I'll take a SOF or NOLF over the latest EA eyegasm any day of the week. Because all the pretty in the world doesn't help when you are bored to tears. And hanging with gamers I know I am not alone. You should try NOLF,SOF or Nosferatu. They all have cheesy graphics but used the environment and unique gameplay to make for very enjoyable games which are still a blast. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

Re:Because we can

[MiceHead]

And if an indie developer is worried about direction, make a simple one level demo and share it with the gaming forums,telling them ahead of time that the game isn't about graphics but bringing back the fun to FPS. I'm sure he'd find a ton of guys like me that would be happy to play test it and give him new ideas,because in the end all the eye candy doesn't mean squat if it isn't FUN.

Our (lucky) 13th title will try to fit the bill for a fun, indie-developed FPS. However, the feedback we've received over the years is that a) it's difficult for an indie developer to get the public's attention with same, and b) many (not all) gamers demand the eye candy. Valve picked up our latest, and people are vocally split into two camps -- "This is fun despite the simple graphics" vs. "This looks like crap, so I won't play it." It's still been good for us, but it's absolutely received less attention for not being both fun and pretty at the same time.

Re:Because we can

[tubapro12]

If F/OSS counts as indie, maybe you should look at the Cube Engine?

Re:Because we can

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should we care just because they're a game developer?

hmmm let me guess... because this is a friggin computing forum? or where you messing things up and thought you were posting at the car forum?

Re:Because we can

[Samizdata]

Woot! I bought End Of The World off Steam, and have quite enjoyed it, even if I find it a little difficult. I have even been recommending it to friends with families, due to the graphics style and non-violent game play. Neat to hear from one of the devs.

Re:Because we can

[EvilIdler]

SoF wasn't fun more than once, but the NOLF games are among the top FPS-style games I've ever agreed. I second the wish for more originality like that. I miss exploding poodles.

There should be a ban on WW2 games from now on. The last game we needed was Company of Heroes. We're done now. It's great, but let's have a new theme next, please!

Re:Because we can

[EvilIdler]

I'm in a third group there, I think..I will try the demo when it lets me launch in a widescreen resolution of my own choice ;)

I'm already keeping an eye on Galaxy Rage.

Re:Because we can

[Chris Pimlott]

Valve picked up our latest, and people are vocally split into two camps -- "This is fun despite the simple graphics" vs. "This looks like crap, so I won't play it." It's still been good for us, but it's absolutely received less attention for not being both fun and pretty at the same time.

I haven't played it, but from both the screenshots and the description, it looks like a Katamari Damacy clone... is it?

Re:Because we can

[hairyfeet]

Did you ever try Nosferatu? You have until dawn to get through this giant castle and rescue your family,the castle layout is randomly generated and so is the bad guys so you can't memorize the route,and the weapons are all 1899 vintage,which means if you miss you are in trouble. And it has some of the best scary music you have ever heard,it is just like being in a Universal Pictures horror movie from the '30s. And for some unique gameplay that also uses randomization try SWAT 3&4. You need to take the bad guys alive whenever possible,and you never know when a "hostage" is actually working with the bad guys.

And while I admit SoF is not the kind of game you'd play every day,the GHOUL system for me really kicked it up a notch. So much better than Doom 3 where you can kill a bad guy by hitting him in the toe enough times. But I have to agree that NOLF 1&2 where truly great. If we could just get some developers to try new things instead of WW2 it would be wonderful. But I have NO desire to play yet another CoD or MoH. Been there,done that,got the t-shirt. And as always this is my 02c,YMMV

Re:Because we can

[jamie(really)]

Did you play ONI? You could kick the gun out of their hands. Like that game a lot.

Re:Because we can

[KingBenny]

/agree ... nuff said

Nothing to do with roguelikes

[Anonymous Coward]

I was excited by the title and thought that it would be about roguelike games. Guess I was wrong:-(

Just give them freebies

[phoneteller]

Maybe giving them freebies like a game console, a few game disks and a Nintendo Wii will help them vent out their feelings over the game.

Mostly lack of business acumen

[BadAnalogyGuy]

You can be the greatest programmer in the world, but until the realities of the market are well understood, you're going to be starving.

The fact of the matter is that very few independent programmers make it big. Those that do either got lucky or had a good understanding of business. It's easy to go off on your own and create what you want, but it's a completely different thing to garner interest in the product and sell it for a profit.

The reason why game developers "go rogue" is because they are inherently a seat-of-the-pants type personality who see personal pleasure and freedom as the highest attainable goals. While those are fine goals, without a solid business understanding, those goals area farther away from the independent game developer than if they stayed at a large employer.

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[AKAImBatman]

You can be the greatest programmer in the world, but until the realities of the market are well understood, you're going to be starving.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree a bit here. History is chock full of studios founded by programmers, artists, and designers that broke off from their employer to do something interesting. In many cases, it was to escape the employer's risk aversion. i.e. It's not that games other than First Person Shooters don't sell. It's that large companies know that FPSes sell, so they don't want to take a risk on anything else.

The smaller studios, OTOH, have an opportunity to pursue new gaming styles and lines of games that don't have to align with what the big executives THINK will sell. Sometimes they make it big. More often, they manage to prove out the market before being folded back into a larger company. That larger company then sees "hot new opportunities" that didn't exist before. Could the large company have opened up the market to begin with? Sure. But why take the risk when someone else will do it for you?

The end result is that these smaller studios (these days often referred to as "Indies" partly due to the low investment capital needed to start making modern games) make their money in a tried and true business fashion: An exit strategy.

The fact of the matter is that very few independent programmers make it big.

The fact of the matter is that very few small business owners make it big. (Investors like to tout the "90% of small businesses fail" number.) There's nothing inherently different about the gaming sector.

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[obergfellja]

in todays society, if you are programming for a company, you will have to put up, or no paycheck. In atleast 90% of america's economy it is political and ego stroking. Making someone look good. Only way you can get away from this, is if you are the Sole Programmer in a company of One... and at that, you will have to stroke someone's ego to atleast sell your code/product.

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[Anonymous Coward]

these days often referred to as "Indies" partly due to the low investment capital needed to start making modern games

I always thought that modern games required dedicated graphics and music departments, and as such was much more expensive to make than the games of old (Amiga, C64) where one guy could do it all. Is this not true anymore, has graphics gotten cheaper? Or are we talking about non graphics heavy puzzle-games?

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[AKAImBatman]

has graphics gotten cheaper?

No, AAA titles still cost more than ever. What has changed is that the market has become more willing to accept "retro" titles. These titles are not much more sophisticated than, say, a SuperNES title, but they still get to take advantage of technological advancements. Hand drawn art, sampled compositions, and relatively complex physics engines can all be done on a budget these days. If you're willing to spend a little extra on a pre-fabbed 3D engine, you can even use off-the-shelf 3D models to throw your game together.

That's why a few guys can go from making Flash Games to making one of the most popular downloadable titles today. They already had team members or contractors able to make the assets. All they needed to do was use the Wii's technology to step up to their A game and make it happen.

Is there a larger investment involved in a console title? Yes. But that's all part of the risk/reward aspect of running a small business.

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[phrenq]

The fact of the matter is that very few independent programmers make it big.

I think that's exactly the mentality many developers are trying to escape by "going rogue". Many of them would be happy making a modest living, never "making it big", while creating the games they want to make.

There is another article in the same issue of Escapist that describes the history of Kingdom of Loathing. Nobody's getting rich there, but they jobs a ton of game developers would kill to have.

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[Anonymous Coward]

What is insightful about this comment?

There is a lot of space between a starving programmer and "making it big". Their goal is not to make it big, but to make a living with what they love.

You don't have to be Picasso to make a living with painting. You don't have to be Metallica to make a living with music. And you don't have to be Sid Meier to make a living with your games.

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[immcintosh]

This statement is absurd. Starting your own independent company and business acumen are not mutually exclusive. Have you ever worked at a large developer? Sure, their titles bring in an order of magnitude more money, but they also COST an order of magnitude more money to make. Any indie developer who makes a one, two, three man project that becomes reasonably popular, even in a niche, is going to be making some very nice profit. At a big developer you're working paycheck to paycheck. It's solid work, but not what I would call "business acumen." And I have a VERY hard time imagining a big developer that would be able to provide more pleasure and freedom than being able to control your entire own project making exactly what you want to make. I honestly have no idea where you're coming from.

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[mcvos]

You can be the greatest programmer in the world, but until the realities of the market are well understood, you're going to be starving.

The fact of the matter is that very few independent programmers make it big.

Another fact of the matter is: independent programmers don't need to make it big. They just need to make a decent living doing what they love, and that's certainly achievable if you know your market well. That last bit is important. You're no longer just a programmer, now you're suddenly also a marketer.

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[Synn]

The fact of the matter is that very few independent programmers make it big.

They really don't have to make it big though. If you made 60k a year at EA, you only really need to make 60-80k a year selling your game. Less if you're working from home and don't have to deal with the expenses of driving into work each day.

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[KGIII]

My Other Car is Made of Meat!

KOL FTW

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[Anonymous Coward]

They just need to make a decent living doing what they love, and that's certainly achievable if you know your market well. That last bit is important. You're no longer just a programmer, now you're suddenly also a marketer.

Case in point, Armagan and Ipek Yavuz who are working on Mount&Blade. It went from a part-time project to a small team in a real office and their source of a paycheck. www.taleworlds.com is the web site. They even have a new business model: pay to play beta at a discounted rate, with the price increasing towards the release price with each new beta version. Many people payed $11 - $14 for the game, and in Sept. it is going to "go gold" for $39.99.

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[kv9]

how about a car analogy?

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two kinds of clients in the world. Those that are nice and foregive deadlines but have little or no money to pay you or pay you what you are worth. The other type of client keeps the bills paid. They are total demanding assholes who complain no matter how close to perfection you achieve, but they pay you, pay you well, and pay you on time, but deep down inside you probably hate them. Only the self-employed know this.

Oh, yeah, for those that think being creative and being self-employed are the same thing. Think again. Like the fruit stand guy, he must sell his best fruit to make enough to feed his kids. All the dropped, spoiled and squashed fruit by customer's hands or freight trucks in transit, are eaten by the family to help reduce loss or operating costs. People who take shit from the boss, work 9 to 5 and earn considerably less net because the boss picked up the tab for the toiletpaper and heating/air conditioning bill, go home after a hard day and are creative in whatever way they wish from say 8:00 pm to 2:00 am each day. Life is never what it seems.

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[Fulcrum of Evil]

(Investors like to tout the "90% of small businesses fail" number.)

Who cares? Write a decent business plan and your odds just went way up.

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd call it misidentifying the right tree.

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[Anonymous Coward]

Define "make it big" ?? Technically all you need is to build a decent library of games that can make you a comfortable yearly salary. Anything more is gravy.

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[Anonymous Coward]

"The fact of the matter is that very few independent programmers make it big."

And how many programmers at a large company like EA are going to "make it big"?

The fact is that the people who are making the BIG money at companies like EA are almost entirely MBAs, not programmers. Not to mention that there's probably no more than a few thousand people worldwide who make more than six figures off of game development.

The question is not "making it big", it's "making it comfortable" -- in other words, having enough money to do more or less what you want AND have a good quality of life. The big companies will offer you long-term stability and a decent salary, but they'll make you work like a dog, typically. Indie companies will too, but at least you've got a lot more say into when you work and what you're working on. :)

(Disclaimer: As a former programmer at Electronic Arts and a current co-founder of a game startup, I am a proud member of the group mentioned in TFA.)

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[bug1]

| Who cares?

You. If you didnt why did you comment ?

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[v(*_*)vvvv]

I don't think you are really disagreeing.

but until the realities of the market are well understood, you're going to be starving.

I mean, you can't deny that without working with the market you won't be able to milk it. Entrepreneurs are often multi-talented, and their craft might steal the spotlight, but if they can make it on their own as_a_business then there is something to say about their ability to run a business, especially in hindsight.

With that said, I do find it worrying how huge these games are getting. Even the big established game companies have had trouble profit-wise when it comes to return on investment. This is making the barriers to entry extremely high, and to get a piece of such a market *alone* is... a daunting task to say the least. It was much easier in the old Atari and Nintendo days to publish a game you wrote in your garage, but how many of the companies that got a great start that way back in the day still exist today? My point exactly.

So I say you'd at least need to take a few buddies with you if you plan on making it big on your own.

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Because the 90% thing is misleading; if you bothered to work out a credible business plan, you've already mapped some or most of the risks, know how much it's going to cost, and have a decent idea of what sort of market share and market size you can get to. This removes you from the 90% figure because you can toss the plans with a low chance of success and stack the game in your favor.

Anyway, a lot of business failures (the ones that could've worked) are due to either underfunding or poor leadership. Good to know how much cash you need to get in the game before you start.

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[AKAImBatman]

It was much easier in the old Atari and Nintendo days to publish a game you wrote in your garage

Where in the world did you ever get that idea? The companies that made 2600 and NES games had quite a bit of cash behind them. (Not to mention some nice offices.) I think you're confusing games for computers like the Commodore 64. Those were sometimes made by one guy in his garage, but the quality generally suffered as a result.

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[mcvos]

They even have a new business model: pay to play beta at a discounted rate, with the price increasing towards the release price with each new beta version. Many people payed $11 - $14 for the game, and in Sept. it is going to "go gold" for $39.99.

That sounds very similar to what I was planning, except my beta would be free, after release the game would be very limited and cheap, but while I kept adding more and more features, the price would slowly go up.

Don't hold your breath, though. My basic engine isn't even close to being finished.

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[jamie(really)]

If you think they leave because "they are inherently a seat-of-the-pants type personality who see personal pleasure and freedom as the highest attainable goals" then you are failing to understand the nature of their strengths, and the nature of their motivations.

Another key to success is to understand people. May I ask what you do?

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[jamie(really)]

Much less, because you can write everything off.

Re:Mostly lack of business acumen

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I troll Slashdot. What do you do?

One drawback of indie games: Local multiplayer

[tepples]

I am an indie game developer, and I want to develop games that can be played by more than one person at a time on a single machine. This can be either a split screen (like Mario Kart or Tetris) or a fixed or semi-fixed view that shows all players (like Bomberman or Street Fighter). There are three ways to do this, each with their own drawbacks:

• Video game consoles have multiple controllers and a large monitor. But the consoles sold in English-speaking countries have a lockout chip and historically anti-indie policies.
• Multiple PCs provide enough space for each player. But most families of four aren't willing to spend $2,000 to fill a room with four PCs.
• One PC would seem to be the closest counterpart to consoles for the indies. But most people don't know that USB game controllers, USB hubs, and video cards with SDTV output exist. Without them, sharing a keyboard and a 17" monitor is painful to say the least.

Should I just bite the bullet and develop my prototype for Windows?

Re:One drawback of indie games: Local multiplayer

[geminidomino]

Should I just bite the bullet and develop my prototype for Windows?

No, just do it literally. It's been years. If you haven't solved it yet and you're still posting the same old crap, your prototype isn't ever going to be made, much less a finished game.

Stop trying to hide your QQing under the guise of actually doing something development-related

Re:One drawback of indie games: Local multiplayer

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an indie game developer, and I want to develop games that can be played by more than one person at a time on a single machine.

If you were truly an indie game developer you would know this. Sounds to me like you are a programmer with a game idea.

In that case, a Windows prototype makes sense. Then find a developer or publisher to work with.

It's one thing to develop a game. It's an entirely different process to produce a console game (console owners want large orders and upfront payment, got $100K? And you have to develop on their dev system - got $20K?) or to get something on the shelves at Walmart.

If your prototype is good you should be able to find someone to work with.

Re:One drawback of indie games: Local multiplayer

[dada21]

You're missing the best way to do it, IMHO: contact an Asian microconsole manufacturer, and work with their ROM to develop your own game.

There are numerous (maybe hundreds?) Asian microconsole manufacturers, and all of them are happy to license their subsystems cheaply. The one I think of most often when I come up with my brilliant (and soon forgotten) video game idea is Jakks Pacific. They have a great subsystem that can probably unite more than one player, and it outputs to SDTV standard. I'm fairly sure (but not 100%) that they even have expandability options so you can even offer updates via a plug-in cartridge.

Contact one of these companies and see what they can offer you in terms of licensing their subsystems. Get their backend code structures, and start developing. Yes, I'm sure they're limited in resolution, game size, etc, but it's a great way to get your foot in the door for little money, and see if you have what it takes to develop an entire game from scratch.

Back in the late 80s and early 90s, I was a "developer-producer" of a series of BBS doors that ended up multiplayer. This was an amateur hobby, but one of our doors ended up successful enough (about 100 installations multinode). It took seriously 15 designers to make this text-based game, including copywriters, ASCII graphics artists, C or Pascal code developers, integration developers, alpha testers, beta testers, customer service people, and one MASM assembly language programmer who I don't think had any social skills or even knew how to dress himself. It was a BIG game to implement, and it had no real graphics or high end interactivity. So I'd think a video game with multiple players means a HUGE leap of faith, a big risk, but maybe a big reward.

Good luck.

Re:One drawback of indie games: Local multiplayer

[Rycross]

Make a prototype. Develop it for the PC but make it portable. Pimp your prototype to smaller development houses. All three major console developers are trying to promote indie games through their download services, so if you have a solid prototype and are good at selling your idea, you'd have a shot.

Alternatively, grab the XNA development kit and a XNA Creator's Club membership, and target your game to the 360. Your audience will be limited to other XNA Creator Club members, but you can go on to pimp your idea later.

Re:One drawback of indie games: Local multiplayer

[AKAImBatman]

Video game consoles have multiple controllers and a large monitor. But the consoles sold in English-speaking countries have a lockout chip and historically anti-indie policies.

Historically != Modern Approach

* WiiWare
* XBox Live
* PlayStation Network

These are all services that Indies are able to break into these days. For a small investment (free - $600 for XBLA, $2000 for a WiiWare dev kit) you can make your game for one of these consoles, then offer it for download for a small fee.

Case in Point: Defend Your Castle went from a single-player flash game to a local multiplayer title that happens to be the third most popular game on the WiiWare service.

Now if you mean "Indie" to mean "Homebrew", you're barking up the wrong tree. Go get a copy of DevkitPro + a copy of Twilight Princess for the Wii. That will allow you to develop local multiplayer for a console. Another option is to support XBox 360 controllers on Windows PCs. They are designed as USB devices intended for plugging into either a computer or a console. You can then encourage players to purchase these controllers.

Assuming your homebrew title is good enough, that is...

Re:One drawback of indie games: Local multiplayer

[Westech]

• Video game consoles have multiple controllers and a large monitor. But the consoles sold in English-speaking countries have a lockout chip and historically anti-indie policies.

Check out the newly announced Xbox Live Community Arcade.

Re:One drawback of indie games: Local multiplayer

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think usb controllers and a usb hub is the way to go, you can sell you game as a kit including these things. Don't forget that some people will have these and your game should be sold without the kit also.

Re:One drawback of indie games: Local multiplayer

[p0tat03]

But the consoles sold in English-speaking countries have a lockout chip and historically anti-indie policies.

Am I missing something? Aren't the consoles sold in Asia (PS3, DS, Wii, etc.) all anti-indie as well?

Oh, and XNA would be perfect for your purposes, just FYI.

Re:One drawback of indie games: Local multiplayer

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have an office outside of your home with a mailing address (p.o. box won't do), then sign up for a WiiWare developer account.

Re:One drawback of indie games: Local multiplayer

[tepples]

Anonymous Coward suggested WiiWare:

If you have an office outside of your home with a mailing address

Have you any idea how to go about establishing that in, say, Fort Wayne, Indiana?

Re:One drawback of indie games: Local multiplayer

[sesshomaru]

He might mean Korea: GP2X

But in the US we have the Hydra: Hydra Game Station

Re:One drawback of indie games: Local multiplayer

[Anonymous Coward]

And the name of the bbs game was?

Re:One drawback of indie games: Local multiplayer

[Krater76]

From what I've been reading, MS has opened up their Live service to more indie developers. You can build the game you want and then sell it on Live, and they will take a cut. I don't know how profitable this is or any other ins-and-outs, but you can check out the details here.

Re:One drawback of indie games: Local multiplayer

[Anonymous Coward]

It was based on fantasy, like most of the shit dada21 posts.

Re:One drawback of indie games: Local multiplayer

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they are good systems to develop for SDTV (320*240p or 640*480i) - although homebrew/official Nintendo DS would let you do 3d slightly easier.
But they are not really geared towards first-timers. The cartridge based SunPlus PAC300 systems might be hard to find these days too...

Re:One drawback of indie games: Local multiplayer

[Anonymous Coward]

Use your job's/get a job and use their's?

Seriously.

Re:One drawback of indie games: Local multiplayer

[rtechie]

Should I just bite the bullet and develop my prototype for Windows?

Do you actually want lots of people to play your game and/or do you want a possibility of a chance that you might make money?

If the answer is "yes" you're going to have to bite the bullet and work with the consoles. Anyone who says differently is setting you up for disaster. I'd go with Microsoft, they have a program called "Microsoft XNA" for indie developers.

Re:One drawback of indie games: Local multiplayer

[KDR_11k]

Same as everywhere, buy or rent a place with a few rooms, call it an office and get to work.

Chance to do something different

[Lord_Frederick]

A steady paycheck looks good on paper and many people are perfectly happy working on someone else's ideas for their entire lives. Eventually though, people with a creative streak have to have an outlet or they go insane. Sometimes a part-time hobby is enough, sometimes it means quitting the steady job.

Re:Chance to do something different

[thermian]

Speaking as someone whose done it (not in the games industry, but a similar life changing career move), there can come a time when you'd rather be happy and poor then well off and having to do what someone else says all the time. This is especially true for people of a creative flair.

Besides, if things go well, the period of time with little money will eventually end. Even if not, you won't have that constant feeling of 'I should have done that thing' for years afterwards.
Believe me, that's a killer. I've worked with people who chose the safe path over their dreams, and they tend to be unhappy about it.

In one case, the guy was so openly bitter (in his case about not having risked going to medical college), that he was quite unpleasant to anyone else who talked about taking a chance with their own careers/lives.

For myself, I spent several years perpetually broke, but undeniably happier then I'd been for years. I'm not broke any more, but I'm still happy.

Re:Chance to do something different

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that I has a health problems, and are has live in U.S.

- A not-so-LOL cat.

Re:Chance to do something different

[sandysnowbeard]

A steady paycheck looks good on paper and many people are perfectly happy working on someone else's ideas for their entire lives. Eventually though, people with a creative streak have to have an outlet or they go insane. Sometimes a part-time hobby is enough, sometimes it means quitting the steady job.

Amen.

Re:Chance to do something different

[syousef]

Do you have a family? As a new dad (my boy's just 8 days old), and has just heard some rather awful news about a close family friend being terminally ill and requiring expensive treatment to buy her another 12-18 months, I have to say I'm feeling very bound to my established career even though I most certainly am not always happy about it.

Re:Chance to do something different

[speedtux]

Do you have a family? As a new dad (my boy's just 8 days old)

Well, kids don't fall from the sky and you knew what your responsibilities were going to be. You just can't have it all, sorry.

Re:Chance to do something different

[thermian]

yes, I was/still am a single dad.

Parenthood should have no effect on life choices. Its usually people getting themselves into debt, or deciding that they don't want to have less stuff that stops them, not them being a parent.

Steady Pay Checks ?

[DCFC]

I'm not sure why anyone refers to employment as a games developer as "steady". They are precarious outfits, pathetically dependant upon "hits" that may or may not come again, until they burn you out and drop you like a stone.

An easy explanation for developers "going rogue" is that the pay is so very very bad that the difference between unemployment and salary whilst you write the code is so small that it is not as hard a decision as in other lines of work.

Re:Steady Pay Checks ?

[antirelic]

Not steady pay checks. How do people miss this easy to find fact?

- Mages take almost 3000 xp to make level 2,
- Rogues take only 1250.

Do the math.

Re:Steady Pay Checks ?

[spottedkangaroo]

Mmm, 2nd edition. You do know there was a 4th edition recently?

Re:Steady Pay Checks ?

[Doc Hopper]

Having worked in a computer game development studio for two years and received a job offer at another, I can safely refute your statement. Game development companies pay just a bit under market for the positions they fill, and usually retain people for a number of years.

A lot of studios go under, I admit. But it's not too hard to find your next position, often working alongside the same people you've worked with before. The pay is not "very very bad" or anywhere near unemployment wages. The author of the original cited article (my brother) has had a few rocky times with a few different studios, but manages to be the sole breadwinner for his family of four in a middle-class neighborhood just fine as a developer for a smaller studio.

Re:Steady Pay Checks ?

[xenocide2]

I've become wary of the game development "industry", not because of the terrible pay, but the terrible hours. Or at least, the incredibly stupid combination thereof. Even your brother's article mentions the brutal hours that just drive intelligent people away.

Re:Steady Pay Checks ?

[kabocox]

An easy explanation for developers "going rogue" is that the pay is so very very bad that the difference between unemployment and salary whilst you write the code is so small that it is not as hard a decision as in other lines of work.

I always giggle when some one asks me didn't I want to be a game developer at one point in time. My response is yes, but I like playing games, and having a home/family far more than working on/building games. I'd much rather do the routine db work that is the meat work of all business and get paid a steady decent amount. That let's me buy stuff like a home and games that I have lots and lots of free time to play. I work from 8-5 and rarely get called in after 5. If I want to spend the evening leveling in Disgaea, I can do that. I find that much more fun than working 12-16 hour days for weeks on end with no additional pay.

I tell folks that you've got to be a special sort of insane to be a game developer. I know my limits, and that I'm not wired that way. I'm wondering how many "game developers" were/are early/mid 20's males that have finally started to realize that making games isn't the same thing as playing games and have decided to personally sell out and make more money in a different setting.

Re:Steady Pay Checks ?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

So you're saying that instead of producing magic of their own, successful game developers just steal their ideas from everyone else? ;-)

Re:Steady Pay Checks ?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Game development companies pay just a bit under market for the positions they fill

Is that absolute salary or realistic hourly rate?

Re:Steady Pay Checks ?

[Doc Hopper]

Is that absolute salary or realistic hourly rate?

Depends on the studio, team lead, project, timeline, publisher, and your specific position. As one of the system administrators, my hours were pretty well fixed except during crunch time and immediately prior to a release (when I'd sometimes stay overnight to ensure a duplication job or master burn went through successfully). I was salaried at market rate, and worked 45-50 hours per week generally.

If a game development company is requiring too much mandatory overtime for too long a period -- realistically, anything over 6 weeks during any given quarter -- you can be pretty certain that somebody is mis-managing the project. Three-month-long deathmarches are a pretty good signal the company is struggling.

Heroic effort is not a business plan.

Anyway, my point was simply that most competitive game development studios must pay near market to attract reasonable talent. Many of us are aware of companies that abused their workers; there are many others that don't. Stating that pay is "very, very low", comparable to unemployment, is balderdash.

Sucky hours, unpaid overtime, lack of job security, and a high-pressure environment are separate issues.

Creativity

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a creativity thing. People may not accept it, but Game design is an art form and usually big companies are all about the bottom line and the pencil pushers upstairs don't understand the needs of the designers.

Re:Creativity

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be an art form to the advertising & publicizing departments when promoting the games but to the decision makers its usually not.

1. Look at what kind of games are doing well at the moment.
2. Pick game engine to do the game based on money/engine popularity.
3. Pick a setting/environment.
4. Write a few bits of a story around the setting.
5. Try to add one or two bits of gameplay somewhere if there is enough time.
6. Churn out game as soon as possible.

Most game companies seem to focus on graphics and very little else.

Good luck to the guy. I wish more people would do this. I'd rather play an awful looking game with good gameplay than one of these 'interactive cut-scene' pieces of crap like most games are lately.

Meh

[Itninja]

I have always been surprised to see this. You would think the big game developers would make their people sign no-compete contracts. Do the corporation think that, after showing a developer the secret closet, they are never going to use those secrets to go out on their own?

Re:Meh

[hanako]

How useful are the secrets within a Big Game Company to a one-person indie?

The contacts are very useful, if you were in a position within the game company to have any and not relegated to some sort of dark coding cavern. But the latest greatest supertactic to squeeze extra polygons out of a next-generation console or whatever is likely not of much practical value to someone whose budget is 0.01% of Big Game Company's budget.

Disclaimer: I never worked for a Big Game Company, I'm an entirely self-taught indie, so maybe I missed the level-up mushrooms.

Gone Rogue ... RPG...

[PrescriptionWarning]

R.I.P

User Killed by Pun lvl. 2 with 0 XP.

Re:Gone Rogue ... RPG...

[zish]

It's simple, really. Rogue is Action-Packed!

#
####*##@###O####+##
#
#

Non-compete enforceability

[tepples]

You would think the big game developers would make their people sign no-compete contracts.

Overly broad covenants not to compete are not enforceable. The State of California in fact considers non-competes to be against public policy. The justification is that everybody has a right to work in the field in which he was trained. Ask a lawyer in your state for details.

W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[dada21]

Tax-wise, leaving your "stable" job adds to inherent features to your new job future: greater risk, greater reward.

I have had one W2 job in my life, and I will never do it again. All I saw around me was politics, inefficiency, vying for position, inefficiency, back stabbing, inefficiency, nepotism, and inefficiency. When I saw something that I could do better, faster, and cheaper, I had no reason to "sell the idea" to management because either they'd take it (and climb the ladder) or they'd sit on it due to a pet peeve.

This guy Peeler ignores the absolute greatest reason to quit and go solo: being called back in for sometimes 10X the pay, from your old employer. When I left my only W2 position (at a whopping $21 per hour back in 1992), within 3 months they called me back in, and I offered myself at $60 per hour. Within a year I was at $120 per hour, and had enough to hire own my W2 goons to play nice with the customer. And they were hired out at $120 per hour and paid quite a bit less (although I offer all of them the option to start their own business and subcontract, which many do).

For a gaming engineer, being an employed underling offers little other than so-called "stability." See how stable you are when you get fired or the company goes under. Out come the dreaded CVs, while you pound the pavement looking for another 40 hours a week W2 job. If you're a contractor, you can work for 10, 20, 50, thousands of firms on a regular basis, and if a few go under or cut you, you're out maybe 5% or 10%. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

It's like homeownership: if your boss knows you have a mortgage, you're screwed. He has no reason to offer you incentives (better pay, better hours, better perks, etc) because you have another God to pray to: your bankster. The same is true with a W2: your boss knows he's your only source of income, and as such you're stuck with bad pay, bad hours, bad perks.

Go solo, everyone. Cut the unbilical cord and if you're a hard worker, you'll prosper. Then find about 10 of your previous coworkers, offer them a few bucks more an hour, and bill them out at 5X their pay to not just your old employer but their competitors, too. 3. Profit!

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Rycross]

Off topic but I'm curious. How did you go about getting into contracting? How did you find gigs? And did you set up an LLC or anything like that?

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[TubeSteak]

Go solo, everyone. Cut the unbilical cord and if you're a hard worker, you'll prosper. Then find about 10 of your previous coworkers, offer them a few bucks more an hour, and bill them out at 5X their pay to not just your old employer but their competitors, too. 3. Profit!

It's called being a contractor and the reason you charge 5x your old salary is because you have to pay your own social security, health insurance, 401K, etc etc etc.

There's a lot more to a W-2 salary than the money in your pocket after taxes.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you handle health insurance for your and/or your family?

I live in the U.S. My wife has chronic asthma that's well-controlled --- through medication. But this pre-existing condition results in virtually unpayable insurance premiums. The last time I thought about "going solo," I priced insurance options. The non-group (ie, self-bought rather than employer provided) insurance I could find that would take my family on (two children under 10) was over two thousand a month. I'd love to go solo, but I'm terrified that one medical problem would bankrupt us.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[dada21]

It's called being a contractor and the reason you charge 5x your old salary is because you have to pay your own social security, health insurance, 401K, etc etc etc.

But the perks for paying these yourself are worth it. Incorporate as an S-corp, pay yourself a low salary, issue quarterly dividends which are taxed at a lower rate, and you'll score more in-pocket money. Health care for individuals is ridiculously cheap if you do it correctly:

1. Live a healthy lifestyle (get off your rear, fatty)
2. Start an HSA (tax free, pay for doctor's visits with a debit card)
3. Get a high deductible health insurance policy ($5k-$10k)
4. Negotiate a cash discount with your doctor (many do, at a HUGE savings) and avoid using insurance

The wealthy always know what insurance is for: life catastrophes, not common colds, hail damage or minor floods. You pay for those out of your emergency savings, not out of your insurer's pocket. Insurance is CHEAP if you use it for emergencies only.

401Ks are also for idiots, IMHO. You're usually stuck in restrictive funds that issue no dividend profit distributions or anything worth investing in. When you're your own boss, you can invest in YOURSELF and get returns of 20-40% a year on those investments, if not more.

Social security is only paid for off of your salary income, so your dividend distributions are relatively tax-free except for income taxes (dividend taxes).

There are so many reasons to cut the W2-ties that it isn't funny. I can't understand why people put all their eggs in one employment basket.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[dada21]

I'm sorry to hear about your wife's chronic asthma. I'll tell you a story about the woman I married: she had chronic asthma since she was a child, in the ER 3-4 times per year for steroids. When I met her, I told her she's crazy, it isn't asthma. I took her to 5 "professional" doctors, and she still had the problems. Then I went "underground" and did some research on her asthma. We cut back on her sugars, starches and anything that may convert to sugar in the blood (corn primarily). Within 3 months, she lost about 15 pounds, and never had an asthma attack again. Never. So I'd first look to make sure that her asthma is truly asthma and not a horrible reaction to her diet or things in her environment. I'm not saying she isn't sick, but in all honesty, I distrust those who don't do their duty (i.e., some doctors) in finding triggers to things that can look like a disease, but might just be a dietary condition that is easily fixed.

As for how to handle chronic illnesses, being self-employed is probably not for you. I used to have kidney stones, which were not covered by my insurance. Eventually, I found my doctors who I was able to negatiate VERY good prices to deal with my pre-existing condition. I will never, EVER use insurance for a doctor's visit, a prescription drug (I abhor them, generally), or anything that isn't life- or lifestyle- threatening. My deductible annually is around $10,000, if I remember correctly, and I haven't had an insurance claim for anything in probably 7 years. My healthcare for myself and my family is VERY cheap, and over 7 years I think I've paid that $10,000 deductible in savings 2 times over, maybe more. I'm thinking of kicking it up to a $20,000 deductible if I can find an insurer who will go that high.

For most, health care is a crutch that they think they need, but in all honesty health care in general is not that expensive, if you go and negotiate with your family doctor. Offer cash-on-the-barrel, and many doctors will cut their fees significantly since they won't have to deal with insurance companies or government agencies. My own doctor charges $150 for a visit (insured) but his cash-on-the-barrel rate is $45! He said most people pay a $20 co-pay, but he'd rather get $45 in cold hard cash when they visit. I do, and I'm fine with it.

My insurance is for accidents, cancer, stroke, heart attack, etc. It's not for day-to-day health care needs, but I've forced myself to live as healthy as possible, short of the excessive smoking, scotch drinking, high speed driving, sleep-deprived-weekends-in-Vegas, and the occasional illicit substance use. Oh, and binging on bacon, eggs, and butter probably isn't wise, either.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Shivetya]

Yeah, it is a lot easier to just go in and work for someone else.

just like its going to be a lot easier to vote someone in who promises you free this, that, and whatever.

If anything defines whats wrong in America is that there are not enough 1099=winner people around anymore. If there were we would not have this bloated government and our choices would not be which candidate is willing to take more stuff from people who earn it and give it to someone else and instead on which candidate could reduce spending the most.

I admit, I am lazy and taking the W2 route. I like being able to do forty hours a week again. Working for myself and I found I did more hours. Then again that is what separates many of the haves from the have nots. If your complaining about not having your probably not working enough

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It's like homeownership: if your boss knows you have a mortgage, you're screwed. He has no reason to offer you incentives (better pay, better hours, better perks, etc) because you have another God to pray to: your bankster. The same is true with a W2: your boss knows he's your only source of income, and as such you're stuck with bad pay, bad hours, bad perks.

What you say mostly applies only on the low end. Some of the nicer places I've worked have had profit sharing and stock and bonuses and lots of perqs to keep us happy. Just because someone has a mortgage doesn't mean they can't walk and get a job with another top firm. We had problems with Google stealing employees for example and I know of at least one case where managers saw someone's resume was making the rounds and offered them a big raise and a promotion to stay.

While I understand where you're coming from and have done both regular salaried jobs and contract work. I just don't think it is as clear cut of a division as you're implying. When you're pulling an $100 an hour or more contracting, you generally have the CV to get a salaried job where you can move up or get big bonuses or other concessions.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[dada21]

Rycross:

I established a S-corporation, which is basically a corporate entity where the profits and losses flow to and from the shareholders. Eventually I had multiple S-corps, so I incorporated a C-corp holding company for certain assets which I lease back to my S-corps.

Finding gigs is the hardest part, but if you've saved a few years of expenses (and everyone should), you can generally find work fairly quickly. The key is to be prepared to travel, if necessary, and pound the pavement to get those first gigs. Once you're in with a few businesses, word-of-mouth does its job. I'd save that 80% of my new clients are referred by old clients, who get a nice reward for the referral.

Starting out initially is the big scare, but it can be done while you're working your W2 "job." There are MANY organizations who need some simple needs, and are great stepping stones to securing better work (and higher paying work) once you've cut your teeth. Every day I see another opportunity for someone with even basic skills in a variety of markets. If I could clone myself, I'd be a billionaire. Note that I do not advocate self-employment for money reasons primarily, I advocate them for job stability and happiness. It boils down to the "all your eggs in one employment basket" feeling I have: when you have many customers, you have more time to handle your own desires, and have a bit more stability if you can enter various industries and markets so you're not tied to one market that may have its own ups and downs.

Feel free to email me and ask some questions.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Talonius]

You seem to indicate that those who need health insurance are hypochondriacs or fat and lazy. What if you're a diabetic? (24 years and counting.)

That's why I'm a W-2 Wage Slave. Insulin is $100.00 a bottle. Combine that with everything else... snort. Not even possible.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Anonymous Coward]

The trick is to find a stable position with good insurance and non-insane hours. That way you have evenings and weekends free to pursue freelance ambitions. Family makes things more complicated of course, but I've had some success with having it both ways.

Mind you, I'm a 2D/3D artist. Programming is a different culture in some ways.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[dada21]

I admit, I am lazy and taking the W2 route.

Thank you for admitting this. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with saying "I really don't want to find customers, bill them, fight them for payments, track dozens of jobs, drive to different places every day, travel the country, just for a few extra bucks and more free time when I need it, because I am lazy." In fact, I appreciate those who respond to my questioning their W2-status with "I'm just lazy." It's a breath of fresh air because it means they THOUGHT of going solo, or they had and the extra responsibility wasn't worth it. It also gives those W2 workers a new view of what marketing, HR, management and accounting does each and every day.

When you're your own boss, you have to wear many suits. It isn't always easy. Getting paid can be a nightmare, although the use of factoring companies is a worthy idea if you've got a ton of regular slow-pays and they give you consistent income each month.

The key, I'd say, is to at least try it, especially if you're young. Finish college, move in with the folks, get a part-time evening job for some simple income, stop using credit cards for fun stuff, and get out there. It's not that hard to start, and if you fail, you're out a year or two of trying, but you get some real business experience. Go get a W2 job if you're not cut out for it -- not everyone is. I think the worst thing for someone who wants to be their own boss is college experience, actually. When my friends hit college at 18, I told them I'd take the $80k they'll invest in education and invest it in my businesses. It worked for me, very nicely, and I rarely feel bad about not trying the college thing for more than a semester here or there. And I thank God every day that the only cubicle I see is the one I put in my garage for my own purposes.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[dada21]

Talonius: Sorry to hear about your diabetes. I have diabetes in my family, so I watch my sugars and starches with a passion. When I do eat that junk, my stomach bloats like crazy and I yell "Diabetes!" to remind myself why not to eat garbage (sugars and starches).

Being "blessed" with diabetes at a young age IS terrible, I'm sure. I'd love to talk to you have it via email if you don't mind, because I am interested in looking for a solution for those with diabetes at a young age who are stuck in a W2 position.

I have one contractor I work with who is diabetes (he's maybe 35). I just asked him via IM what he does, and he told me that Wal-mart sells a generic version of Novolin R and Novolin N insulin for $20 a bottle. Over the counter, too, no prescription required! Maybe that's not the type of insulin you need (I have no idea what Novolin is), but he said it's fine for him, and he uses his insurance coverage for everything else. Is that an option for you?

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Anonymous Coward]

Great for when you are single, but the health coverage balance changes considerably when you settle down. I'm freelance and have been since '95. Our first child cost us over $23k in medical birthing bills. I swear they just make crap up and everyone in the build gets to raise an invoice. A high deductible is fine for single life when you take care of yourself. It's bloody awful when you have kids that seem to discover new ways to require medical treatment.

Let's see your insurance coverage. I know other business owners, nothing to do with IT. It's the same with them. Health coverage is fscking expensive. It sounds like you have poor coverage and nothing for a family?

Now what do you do should you get a serious illness and are unable to work for an extended period. Got coverage for that? I'm assuming you carry no debts, the house is in the clear with no mortgage or equity loans.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that a 401(k) is for idiots, then you obviously have no understanding of retirement planning. Yes, if someones makes gobs and gobs of money, they could just put it in safe and take it out as needed. Here, in the real world, we have something called income taxes, capital gains taxes, inflation, and an average market return of 8-12% a year (depending on what view you take). Plus, if you are lucky like me, you can get matching on a 401(k) /cheer

Insurance is also only cheap if you have a clean bill of health when you get it and have a fairly binding agreement. Many insurance companies also reserve rights to drop customers in some situations. This happened to my cousin, who at 26, had colon cancer. She made a full recovery and was dropped by her insurance company later -- with full legality (so my sister, aunt, uncle, uncle and bro-in-law who are lawyers told me).

Also, lest we forget most start up companies fail. Contracting is great when one has a gig, however even persons with great talent lay idle sometimes.

Even if you are a badass at computer science, programming, etc unless you have a solid understanding of finance the odds are greatly against someone making solid money - also what about providing for a spouse & kids? I would feel pretty bad if I couldn't pay the bills because I planned poorly.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[dada21]

Great for when you are single, but the health coverage balance changes considerably when you settle down. I'm freelance and have been since '95. Our first child cost us over $23k in medical birthing bills. I swear they just make crap up and everyone in the build gets to raise an invoice. A high deductible is fine for single life when you take care of yourself. It's bloody awful when you have kids that seem to discover new ways to require medical treatment.

This is why this country is a mess. A couple wants to have a child, but they don't save for it. The costs are $23,000, so they say "Hey, we have insurance, why not charge all the non-child-rearing individuals for it in higher insurance costs?" Unbelievable. I want a child, but I won't until I can pay for it. I've done the research on paying for it myself. The first step is to get a cash-on-the-barrel prepayment rate. There's a significant discount for doing this. Then, you can get a rider for birthing cost above a "no-pay" amount. So if I pay $10,000 up front, I can get insurance for the birth ahead of time for amounts over $30,000. I would be liable for an additional $20,000 if there are complications, but the insurance for the amounts over $30,000 are reasonable. $30,000 to birth a kid sounds reasonable to me, considering all the problems that could happen. If I don't have $30,000 to birth a child, why would I want to have a child who may cost me $500,000 in their first 18 years? The 9 months before birth at $30,000 are reasonable if the cost to have a kid can be $30,000 a year after birth.

Let's see your insurance coverage. I know other business owners, nothing to do with IT. It's the same with them. Health coverage is fscking expensive. It sounds like you have poor coverage and nothing for a family?

Most business owners use insurance for their day-to-day health needs, rather than for what insurance is for: emergencies. If I have a cold, or a cut, or a broken arm, or something minimal, I don't go and use a co-pay, I call my doctor, get a negotiated cash rate, and make a visit. I prefer not to use AMA doctors, either (AAPS is better). I tend to refuse to see doctors who accept medicare or medicaid, because their rates are MUCH higher. My primary phyisician has stopped accepting insurance as of a few months ago, and now just charges a yearly stipend for services. Concierge medicine is the future. My business-owning friends pay $3000 a year for a health club membership, $15,000 a year for golf membership, $30,000 for yacht club access (the wealthy ones). I pay $1800 a year for premium doctor care, which includes free home visits if I can't get out of bed. I believe one of my business owner friends pays almost $800 a month for health care so he can get a $10 co-pay visiting his doctor and waiting an hour to do so. I can just walk in; I visited my doctor at his home two Sundays ago when I thought I had something bad going on: it was just a rash from new detergent. *phew*

Now what do you do should you get a serious illness and are unable to work for an extended period. Got coverage for that? I'm assuming you carry no debts, the house is in the clear with no mortgage or equity loans.

30 year mortgages are for suckers. Renting for the past 4 years has made more sense than owning, and we did just that (sold our paid for house in 2003, just bought a foreclosure in 2008, rented for 1/3 the cost of owning for the in-between time).

If I am sick for a long period of time, I have savings. My businesses have semi-liquid assets. If you start working at 16 and saving 20% of your income, by 35 you should have somewhere in the range of $300,000 in the bank that can be used to pay off a small home, put towards emergencies, or just keep for retirement in addition to whatever money you're socking away for retirement. Of course, most people at 35 have a net asset value in the negative region, because they have to keep up with the Joneses

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Seakip18]

Doing it young when you can afford to fail sounds ideal, but if you've got a fiance and plans for kids, you're screwed.

You can't put off having kids till you're in your late thirties otherwise, you are throwing more birth-related complications plus being in your late fifties and the kids are looking at colleges. Plus, you've got to be confident by the time you are ready to have children, you can afford anything/everything that can go wrong. Not saying it is not possible, but the idea of having a kid on the way and not being able to afford for a family's well being scares the fsck out of me. Not that working a W-2 guarantees it though, given how easy it seems to lay people off....

I think the flipside is to wait until you are older, bid your time in the industry, earn your safety net for your spouse and you and then leverage your years of knowledge to strike it alone. You run into the risk of being antiquated but you shouldn't if you've been preparing. Experience will help you sight the pitfalls and risks that your youthfulness will miss. Downsides are that you will not be able to keep up the hours and dedication you could have when.

BTW, alot of the advice sounds straight out of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". Not saying it's a bad book or anything, just another point of view.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[dada21]

If you think that a 401(k) is for idiots, then you obviously have no understanding of retirement planning. Yes, if someones makes gobs and gobs of money, they could just put it in safe and take it out as needed. Here, in the real world, we have something called income taxes, capital gains taxes, inflation, and an average market return of 8-12% a year (depending on what view you take). Plus, if you are lucky like me, you can get matching on a 401(k) /cheer

Retirement planning for the wise:

1. Save 20% of all your income. Put some of it in gold/silver, some of it in revolving CDs, some of it in DIVIDEND-BEARING investments (preferably ones that pay more than 8% dividend on share price).
2. Rent until ownership is really cheaper than rent (rarely is). When it is time to buy, BUY SMALL. Try to buy something you can realistically pay off in 10 years (doable in any market except maybe California). Get a boarder to rent the extra bedroom (or extra boarders) and use their rent to pay down your mortgage (I did this for all my life, even when I was married).
3. Don't use credit to buy depreciating assets ever (cars, toys, etc).
4. Get an extra job if you are not overburdened with your main job.
5. Reduce your external, controllable expenses until you can absorb them (cook yourself rather than eat out, thrift store clothing, etc).

There is no reason for a middle income earner to not have a net worth of 1/2 million by 35 in today's dollars. None. By 40 you can get to the million mark, easily.

401/Ks are for schnooks, plain and simple. Stocks that do not issue a realistic dividend are not profitable. Their prices go up due to government inflation of the money supply, so that 8-12% you speak of is lost to the drop in value of the fiat money you use. I've never seen people make money investing in the stock market for the long haul, once you factor in the currency's loss in value due to monetary inflation. Investments should pay profit dividends, those that don't aren't making a profit for the investor.

Insurance is also only cheap if you have a clean bill of health when you get it and have a fairly binding agreement. Many insurance companies also reserve rights to drop customers in some situations. This happened to my cousin, who at 26, had colon cancer. She made a full recovery and was dropped by her insurance company later -- with full legality (so my sister, aunt, uncle, uncle and bro-in-law who are lawyers told me).

Horrible. Rare. Anecdotal in most cases. I've planned for these issues with optional cancer riders, and preparation for it if it should happen to me. But the risk of it is small, yet I still plan better than 99% out there. Life happens, but you have to play the odds as much as you can.

Also, lest we forget most start up companies fail. Contracting is great when one has a gig, however even persons with great talent lay idle sometimes.

I've never been idle because I work in a variety of markets, and have supplemented my income with a variety of revenue streams using the money that you put in a 401/K; I invested in local businesses and subcontractors with start-up capital for a percentage of their income ("stock ownership"). Most of my investments have paid 30% on average after 2 years of no payment (per agreements). I've seen some have years making 50%, which wipe out those who went under (rare if I'm helping them).

Even if you are a badass at computer science, programming, etc unless you have a solid understanding of finance the odds are greatly against someone making solid money - also what about providing for a spouse & kids? I would feel pretty bad if I couldn't pay the bills because I planned poorly.

Don't get married until you have a plan for handling the cost. Don't have kids if you can't afford them. Problem solved.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[tknd]

What industry are you in?

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[MrMarket]

I think the GP was talking about Type I; you're talking about Type II. Believe it or not, managing to get through life without any major health liabilities is not a virtue -- it's luck.

That's not to say that some manage what life throws at them better than others, but don't think you're healthy because you deserve it. There are tons of illnesses with both hereditary and environmental causes that you have no control over. By spreading the costs of these illnesses over large pools, we as a society get maximum productivity out of people who would otherwise not be able to contribute to our progress (Stephen Hawking for example).

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Ardipithecus]

Not to take away from your many good comments, but if you can make 20-40% a year on investments you should be in Wall Street instead.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[kv9]

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with saying [snip]

except that, as your post title states, they are losers?

In fact, I appreciate those who respond to my questioning their W2-status with "I'm just lazy."

but they're still losers?

Go get a W2 job if you're not cut out for it -- not everyone is.

obviously, losers aren't.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Anonymous Coward]

Finding gigs is the hardest part ...
The key is to be prepared to travel, if necessary, and pound the pavement to get those first gigs. ...
If I could clone myself, I'd be a billionaire. ...
Note that I do not advocate self-employment for money reasons primarily, I advocate them for job stability and happiness. ...
when you have many customers, you have more time to handle your own desires ...

well well well .. listen to yourself, maybe you are way too much selfconfident. Or do you know so little?

Petr

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Machtyn]

Interesting and respectable response. I, myself, will eventually fly solo and have done so in the past to put myself through school. However, I like not having to worry about the doldrums of business ownership at this time period of my life... so I work for someone else. I still hang on to my college business, but I take no new customers and limit my time doing the work for that side. It does generate a nice stash of income for play things.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Anonymous Coward]

Read up on the different types of diabetes before making soap box statements.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Kneo24]

There are so many reasons to cut the W2-ties that it isn't funny. I can't understand why people put all their eggs in one employment basket.

Not every person has the means or capabilities to market themselves in such a way. Perhaps if you had more air on that high horse of yours, you'd be less dizzy and would be able to think more clearly. But perhaps the lack of oxygen is what makes you so successful?

The fact is, not every person has the drive or motivation to speed a good portion of their time doing research on how to run their own business and get all these deals. That *is* a lot of work. While their 9-5 W2 job might be boring, they can enjoy their evenings at home doing other things to relieve the stress, instead of worrying about their own personal business 24/7.

And I'm sure that somehow, to you, it sounds like a terrible thing. It honestly isn't. Your lifestyle suits you because you are a completely different person from the next person.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[rtechie]

Health care for individuals is ridiculously cheap if you do it correctly

Health care for people that are perfectly healthy is cheap. Health care for people that have actual health problems (anything from MS to asthma), is NOT cheap.

The wealthy always know what insurance is for: life catastrophes, not common colds, hail damage or minor floods. You pay for those out of your emergency savings, not out of your insurer's pocket. Insurance is CHEAP if you use it for emergencies only.

This is just batshit crazy. You do have any idea what REAL medical expenses cost? My father recently died from prostate cancer. He was wealthy and had very good insurance (the best private insurance available) that cost $1000 per individual per month. In the last few months of of his life his expenses were around $150,000 PER MONTH. If he had to pay that out of pocket, how wealthy would he be? How much wealth (and how many debts) would have been left for his children?

Do you have any idea how much it costs to go to an emergency room without insurance? It's $5,000 just to walk in the door, treatment is ADDED to that. It isn't uncommon to walk away from a 1 hour visit to an emergency room having spent $50,000-$100,000.

You have obviously never had to deal with a serious medical condition which is why you can give such boneheaded advice. I hope you continue to stay so lucky.

401Ks are also for idiots, IMHO. You're usually stuck in restrictive funds that issue no dividend profit distributions or anything worth investing in.

It all depends on whether or not the company does MATCHING. If you have access to a MATCHING 401K you should ALWAYS contribute up to the matching amount. That's a guaranteed 100% return on your investment. No private plan can come close to matching that.

Otherwise, they are basically useless.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Rakishi]

It's like homeownership: if your boss knows you have a mortgage, you're screwed. He has no reason to offer you incentives (better pay, better hours, better perks, etc) because you have another God to pray to: your bankster. The same is true with a W2: your boss knows he's your only source of income, and as such you're stuck with bad pay, bad hours, bad perks.

Well if you're easier to replace than toiler paper then of course they don't. Then again if your value to the company is that meager, below the janitor likely, then you may wish to reexamine your life in general.

I on the other hand am more than a monkey in human clothing. My boss knows I can find another job without too much difficulty and that he can't find a replacement for me without a lot of difficulty.

Go solo, everyone. Cut the unbilical cord and if you're a hard worker, you'll prosper. Then find about 10 of your previous coworkers, offer them a few bucks more an hour, and bill them out at 5X their pay to not just your old employer but their competitors, too. 3. Profit!

Why? Instead of wasting my time on all the crap needed to run a business (which I'm neither good nor knowledgeable about) I can instead spend time improving the skills I am good at. Then again I'm not particularly obsessed with money, and instead value peace of mind and happiness quite a bit more. If I wanted to maximize income at the cost of my own happiness (ie: spending a lot of time on crap I don't even marginally enjoy) then I'd have chosen a very different career path.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Red Flayer]

It all depends on whether or not the company does MATCHING. If you have access to a MATCHING 401K you should ALWAYS contribute up to the matching amount. That's a guaranteed 100% return on your investment. No private plan can come close to matching that.

Otherwise, they are basically useless.

Not necessarily -- they are also tax-deferred, which is a huge bonus for those in higher income brackets. If you plan well for retirement, you can make sure that your effective tax rate is lower than when you are earning. That way, instead of paying 35% (or whatever rate you're paying), you'll end up paying far less when taking distributions from the 401k. Yet another way to increase the net value of the investment.

Also, with a 401k, you *can* invest in dividend bearing stocks. You just need to pick the right funds, and make sure your employer (if it's an employer-administered fund) uses a good company for their 401k. The dividends are reinvested into the fund. This is also great, since it reduces the net tax load.

Another thing to note, which tells me he's not as clued in as he'd like to be -- he does not mention the Roth IRA. Earnings from a Roth IRA are completely tax-free. EVERY person who expects to be working 20 years or more should be contributing as much as possible to a Roth, preferably the limit. Then there is no capital gains tax, no income tax on the distributions, nothing. It won't compete with startups that average a 30% return... but if he thinks he can reliably pick startups that yield a 30% return with a 2-yr delay, then he's got a secret many people would kill to have. Frankly, I think it's BS, as with much he writes. He has claimed that 90% of the companies he invests in succeed, and pay him 20%-50% dividend annually.

Unless he's involved in a pyramid scheme (which I wouldn't be surprised) he's full of shit or ridiculously lucky.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[dbIII]

asthma is truly asthma and not a horrible reaction to her diet or things in her environment

Asthma IS a horrible reaction to diet or things in the environment.

Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[tehcyder]

This is why this country is a mess.

I'd say your country is a mess because it doesn't have a national health service like the UK, but no doubt you'd just dismiss that by calling it socialism.

I was considering going Rogue...

[Smidge207]

...but decided on being a Paladin instead.

/I am so very, very sorry for that

=Smidge=

Simply put

[iXiXi]

Programmers are no different than any other profession. Why do small companies exist and how to they find talent to push them up the food chain? Some folks do not care to plug into the large company mentality. Large projects ran by enterprise minded project managers can be stifling. Small companies allow you to be a critical asset and not just an amoeba swimming in the larger developer pool.

Game developers go rogue

[Anonymous Coward]

When they are accused of a crime they didn't commit.

Piracy and Anti-DRM

[microTodd]

Interesting quote from the article:

"Some of them cloak it all with this thin veneer of 'sticking it to the man' and being 'anti-DRM' and 'anti-big corporations.' Despite me giving a free demo, no DRM, innovative games, at reasonable prices with great tech support from a one-man company, the bastards still rip me off and take my stuff anyway."

So in other words, this guy releases his game with no anti-piracy DRM measures and people still play his game without paying him.

I get into piracy arguments with other folks all the time. They talk about how they want "DRM-free" music, information wants to be free, most modern music is crap anyways, etc. But when it comes down to it, they're just being cheap.

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[thermian]

The problem in that case is that he hasn't got his business model sorted.

If people can take your product and walk without paying, they will, its human nature. If them doing that robs you of your livelihood, then the solution is change the product.

Not DRM, that's a train that goes no place good.

No, the solution would be to have a game with on-line components (even as simple as a score league and competitions with small prizes) that people must be registered users to access. So long as the online componants add value, your users will register and pay.

If not then yours is just another in the sea of games people feel no need to purchase.

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[TheSambassador]

Yeah, because wanting to use your payed-for product however you want is "being cheap." Plus DRM doesn't even work, it's easy to bypass and really just makes things difficult for the actual paying customer (100% recycled argument, I know).

However, getting people to pay for an indie game is probably really freaking hard. Not only is it going to be virtually impossible to advertise due to the lack of funds, but most of the time it's actually easier to pirate the game than buy it. About 2 years ago I pirated Gumboy: Crazy Adventures (I have since bought it on Steam) because I liked it so much, but didn't have a credit card to buy it.

Annnd speaking of Steam, it really is an amazing platform to distribute indie games, though I don't know what kind of cut you get from selling it there though. Also, Penny-Arcade's Greenhouse site might become a good venue as well.

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[Asmor]

What it comes down to is, pirates will pirate regardless of whether there's DRM or not. DRM is only an inconvenience for paying customers.

"Some of them cloak it all with this thin veneer of 'sticking it to the man' and being 'anti-DRM' and 'anti-big corporations.' Despite me giving a free demo, no DRM, innovative games, at reasonable prices with great tech support from a one-man company, the bastards still rip me off and take my stuff anyway."

And I suppose he has proof that people pirating his games are the same people who claimed they only pirate to stick it to the man?

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[microTodd]

Yeah, because wanting to use your payed-for product however you want is "being cheap."

I do agree that DRM frequently hurts the person who paid for the product legitimately. Personally, I'm very annoyed by the fact that I can't buy a physical thing (such as a DVD player) and then do to it whatever I want. If I solder in some new chip somehow I've broken the law; that is just WRONG. Same with a CD...if I pay for this physical piece of plastic I should be able to do whatever I want with the bits that are encoded on it.

I see your point, but that's not the point I was trying to make. The people I'm talking to just don't want to pay for stuff so they come up with lame arguments to justify playing a game without paying for it.

About 2 years ago I pirated Gumboy: Crazy Adventures (I have since bought it on Steam) because I liked it so much, but didn't have a credit card to buy it.

Interesting dilemma. I'm not sure what I would do if I really wanted a game without being able to buy it but pirating it in the first place sets off my ethical alarm. However, you did pay for it later so maybe it was just a "delayed purchase". :-)

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[microTodd]

What it comes down to is, pirates will pirate regardless of whether there's DRM or not. DRM is only an inconvenience for paying customers.

Yeah, I know. Its sad. Its kinda like the SPAM problem. Sucks but there does not seem to be any easy, feasible way to fix it. I hate DRM but I also think that piracy is unethical.

And I suppose he has proof that people pirating his games are the same people who claimed they only pirate to stick it to the man?

Good point. There's more than one flavor of pirate out there.

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[Asmor]

I hate DRM but I also think that piracy is unethical.

But the point is, DRM doesn't stop piracy. It simply doesn't. DRM doesn't do anything to piracy at all. There is no reason to use DRM. Using it only hurts your actual paying customers.

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[Cornflake917]

No, the solution would be to have a game with on-line components (even as simple as a score league and competitions with small prizes) that people must be registered users to access. So long as the online componants add value, your users will register and pay.

Your solution is seriously flawed. What you suggest is really just DRM that isn't necessarily "forced" on users. With this solution, you can only take your game in two directions:

1. Make your game suck enough without the online components so it forces people to register the game. However, why would they register if all they know is that your game sucks?

2. Make your game good without the online components and hope people will register it because it's fun. If the game is already fun, why would people with tight budgets pay more for the game?

You are also not taking into consideration that there are people who like to play games for themselves and don't really care about competing against others. You are also not taking into consideration that games may be single player by nature and making it mutliplayer or pseudo multiplayer would only damage the feel or the theme of the game. You also assume that the game developer has the resources (programmers with net coding experience) to create online components. Not necessarily a fair assumption.

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[thermian]

Who in their right mind would think that making a game suck without an online component would be a good idea?

Methinks you haven't really thought this through.

You add MORE to the game, not take stuff away.

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[sesshomaru]

Effective video game DRM does exist! The way to get it is to develop for those gimped abominations called consoles.

For the story of one small, at least semi-indie console publisher, see below:

Working Designs

Working Designs did some things that irritated me (putting their own spin on stories rather than directly translating), but the below quote from the article sums up the fun of being "independent" and working for a console company:

When the Sony PlayStation and Sega Saturn arrived on the scene, Victor Ireland met with then-President of SCEA Bernie Stolar to discuss translating and publishing Sony's Japanese launch SRPG Arc the Lad. Stolar outright refused Victor, saying that RPGs were not the future, and said that WD's games didn't help the Sega CD and TGCD. This sparked a feud between Vic and Stolar, and Vic resigned his company to making Sega Saturn games, as the Nintendo 64 was considered to be too expensive to consider publishing on. When Sony eventually let go of Stolar, and Sega hired him, Stolar's first act was to kill off the Sega Saturn. Victor finished up his Saturn projects and moved the company to the PlayStation, where they achieved some of the more notable successes in their history. And as a personal triumph, they finally managed to get the rights to Arc the Lad and its sequels, which Sony's new management insisted that they bundle together as one game. Vic's feud with Stolar led them to ignore Sega's Dreamcast console in favor of the PlayStation 2, but friction with Sony's approval process was starting to cost Working Designs money, and concerned fans wondered why Working Designs didn't move to the Nintendo GameCube or Microsoft Xbox. In fact, Victor had been pursuing the rights to titles on both consoles, but in a vicious cycle, kept finding himself outbid on the few titles that matched his company's skills. When asked why he passed on Lunar Legend for the GameBoy Advance, a title he already owned the right of first-refusal on, he said it was because the game was mediocre, and because he still disliked the expense of publishing cartridges. He initially dismissed the Nintendo DS, saying that although production costs had come down significantly, the high wait times were still costly, and endorsed Sony's PlayStation Portable, and may have been pursuing titles for that handheld. Upon his company's demise, he quietly withdrew his support of Sony's PSP, and voiced his support for the Xbox 360.

Of course, the DRM that makes piracy much more difficult and that console makers enforce as one of their primary revenue streams, also makes it a requirement that developers have to pay protection money... er... "license fees" to the big three to develop for their crippled computers.

Can't afford to pay the protection money? Hmm... guess you can't afford effective DRM.

In other words, for indie developers, DRM is part of the problem. Oh, and since anything like effective DRM that actually prevents piracy (and on a PC platform, good luck!) will cost an arm and a leg, it makes it unlikely that your indie developer can afford it. Instead they'll try to do it on the cheap, and their game will shortly show up on bittorrent, to be downloaded mainly by pirates but also by people who actually bought the game but can't get it to work because of something stupid about the DRM.

Now, consoles are more profitable because the hurdles to console piracy are higher than for PC piracy. It can be done, but you might have to by specialized equiment and have a certain amount of technical savvy (or know someone who does) to bypass the security. With a computer, it'll just be a matter of running some program that the DRM developer didn't think of how to block and voila, your game can be easily pirated.

Of course, consoles are currently a strong studio system, expect interference with your game's content from all three of the big companies. And it will be alm

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, a small fraction of people are crooks, and a much larger fraction of people are lazy.

Your game might be good; in fact, it sounds very good. And you are the sort of person I would support even just out of principle (if your product is half decent; I don't know your product...)

It sounds like at least a decent game, made by a decent fellow, so if I see it for sale at a decent cost in my neighbourhood I will buy it.

aaannnd OOF! There's the sucker punch. Even though I want to pay you money for your game (is $10 okay?), I can't. There's nowhere in my neighbourhood to buy it.

"Pay online!" my fellow readers scoff;
- I don't like paypal; they are a dangerous, greedy, and thieving monopoly.
- I don't use credit. Period. If I have the money I'll spend it, if I don't have the money I won't spend it. A lot of online payment systems (and 1rst world societies) have a major problem with this.
- I don't know of any other online payment services.
- I trust very very (very?) few online payment systems; namely, my bank.

So, fellow, to you and all other independent creators (of anything: music/movies/games/software/robots), I say: the payment system is broken. You are good people and producers, ready to sell. I am a good customer, ready to buy.

But between us there is a void: there is no open way for you to reach a broad audience (I guarantee you at least 1 in 10,000 people would buy your game, out of hundreds of millions), and when you DO find us, there is no way for us to safely give you the money with confidence we
a) won't be ripped of by the transaction system (Paypal)
b) won't be robbed because the transaction system is insufficiently secure.

I'm all for p2p etc., but perhaps development could be made on a secure FOSS financial transaction + payment system?
    If only to make our shadowy overlords poop their pants:)

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[Cornflake917]

Who in their right mind would think that making a game suck without an online component would be a good idea?

Please, read my post more carefully. I said you were forced to do one of the other, not that either approach is good. Which is why the OP's solution is a bad idea.

You add MORE to the game, not take stuff away.

Again, I never said to take stuff away. But you assume that simply adding stuff to a game will make people want to buy it. This is easier said the done. Especially if you're limited to the OP's solution of merely adding on-line components to the game. You can do basically what most companies do: create a demo of the game which is fun but little content, and then release the full game with DRM. Either way, you're now back to square one. The point the guy made in the article is a very good one: People bitch and moan about DRM, but there really isn't a more effective way to stop them from illegally obtaining your game.

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[trytoguess]

Sez who? A casual glance at the porn available at torrent sites, emule servers, etc show rather clearly the ones who offer their material as downloadable no DRM video files are the most pirated, then come the ones that only offer their products as DVD, the least pirated folks are the ones who use DRM. It's not about stopping piracy which like you said is easily overcome with some tenacity, but making piracy difficult. I know that in the worst (or best) case senario some material got pirated by sheer accident because some idiot shared his entire hard drive which contained said donwnloadable no DRM videos.

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[clary]

Yup...no way that having a mandatory online component to a game will succeed. Somebody wanna let Blizzard know?

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[IamTheRealMike]

Yes it does. Well implemented DRM/copy protection on video games delays the time-to-crack on high-end titles by months, which is sufficient to make a big difference to sales. Macrovision et al have lots of statistics on this .... or what, do you really think ALL the big game publishers are spending money on something that provides no ROI?

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[IamTheRealMike]

If people can take your product and walk without paying, they will, its human nature. If them doing that robs you of your livelihood, then the solution is change the product.

Wow, I've seen some stupid statements around here before but that one is extreme. You just claimed that the vast majority of businesses that make things and then sell them have to "get their business model sorted". Why should video games have to use a different business model to food, clothes, car, electricity or TV companies?

DRM is developed and used because the world is full of people who just don't pay for things, as you astutely observe. The solution is not to try and work around that by eliminating single player games. It's to make it difficult to use the software without paying for it!

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

But the point is, DRM doesn't stop piracy. It simply doesn't. DRM doesn't do anything to piracy at all.

I used to make that argument, until I realised it was fundamentally flawed. DRM doesn't stop all copyright infringement. For example, it probably doesn't stop infringment by either professional pirates in foreign countries or geeks who know how to use BitTorrent. But DRM almost certainly does stop some copyright infringement, by casual swappers, and it may well delay the rest by long enough to make a difference to sales.

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[HTH NE1]

But the point is, DRM doesn't stop piracy. It simply doesn't. DRM doesn't do anything to piracy at all. There is no reason to use DRM. Using it only hurts your actual paying customers.

On the contrary, the actual paying customers having to break the DRM to use their legitimately licensed software may be a gateway to them becoming pirates of other software, particularly when you're part of the younger set.

Your first crack frees you from the software. Soon you're cracking to make software free for you, then for your friends and/or family in your own private little scene.

It doesn't help if you're in a school where the faculty doesn't like to share their originals between departments and they start leaning on their more tech savvy students to crack the copy protection and there's never been any copyright enforcement oversight.

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[brkello]

Uh, you missed his point completely. Obviously that model works fine for games like Starcraft. He is saying that not all games are like that and shoving a multiplayer on top of a game that isn't really designed or meant for multiplayer isn't a solution to the problem in general.

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[thermian]

Ok, on further consideration, you're correct.

I'm trying, falteringly, to start a software house and develop games. The problem of how to avoid DRM and yet retain sales also worries me.

My plan is for a mmorpg type thing, but sans compulsory subscription. I'm aware of the value of cost free game playing for end users, but then there has to be a way of making them think that a subscription would be a good idea.

Since I've failed to attract other developers, on account of having no desire to get into hock with a bank, I'm likely to see this project follow many such into the oblivion.

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[syousef]

Yeah, your customers are all thieves anyway who would avoid paying you if they had a chance. Much better to add hurdles in their way that actually detract from the value of your product by making it only usable in a narrow set of pre-mandated ways. Don't forget to hold onto the keys as tightly as you possibly can and make them jump through hoops to use your product legitimately. Then when your product fails because it's unusable shite point to this one example and rattle your sabres.

How about I find one game commerical game that flopped and decree that "See, writing games for profit doesn't work"! Just as rational as your point of view that since people have taken this guy's game and not paid, all non-DRM games must be flawed and doomed to be stolen. I should just point out that since every popular game gets cracked, and people get it without paying, by your own logic DRM is a bad solution.

Don't let the fact that there are many intermediate ways to manage the problem (eg. shareware or nagware, corporate sponsorship) get in the way of a perfectly good rant.

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[jackbird]

Blizzard, for one. Even disregarding WoW, Battle.net has been a huge value-add to all of their games for over a decade.

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[KlausBreuer]

Another good idea (as demonstrated by Stardock with their games, for example "Galactic Civilization I/II") is to bring out a good, bug-free game without copy protection. And if the user registers, he can download the additions and extensions being developed for the next few years.

Works like a charm - particularly as you'll have good contact with your fans if you bring out a new game...

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[brkello]

That's just not true. There are some people out there that will pirate no matter what. But there are many others out there that don't know what a .rar file is or don't understand the process to use these hacked games. That small barrier is enough to make them buy the game. On top of that, who really trusts the people who pirate the software not to stick malicious code in there?

The sad thing is you have someone doing exactly what people on here say a company should do to avoid piracy. Yet his game gets pirated. And you still have some messed up part of your brain that makes you attack him instead of the people who do not pay him for his work. If you want to actually discuss this subject like a grown up, you have to ditch this mentality that DRM only is bad for the paying customer. It just isn't true. It does reduce the amount a game is pirated. What we have to talk about is how to implement a scheme that inconveniences the user as little as possible and maybe even adds features to the game that are desirable (ala Steam).

Re:Piracy and Anti-DRM

[Cornflake917]

Go to any bit torrent website and look how many people are leaching/seeding Blizzard's games. God can only imagine how much people were leaching when bnetd was still in full force. That being said, Blizzard has the capital to market and put their games on store shelves, the online game component alone isn't what made their game sell. They are popular enough that they don't have to infect their games with nasty DRM in order to make a profit. Indy developers aren't necessarily so blessed. Not any developer can sit down and pull battlenet out of their ass, and on top of that, afford the resources required to maintain such a service.

Re:Vanity

[EZReady]

Wow, your parents must be really proud!

Why Game Developers Go Rogue

[Dancindan84]

Why do game developers leave big companies to form their own companies? The exact same reasons other professionals leave big companies for their own companies. More breaking news at 10.

re: When they're accused of a crime.

[MRe_nl]

These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground ; )

It's hard to not get flagshipped though

[Jugalator]

Game development is a fierce competition though, especially if you aim for the stars at the first try. Just ask the guys behind Flagship Studios, and then these were among the most experienced developers in the industry.

What at least one of them acknowledged though (I forget the name, I think he worked for QA on their sister company Ping0), was that they had a rather poor balance of people knowing how to run a company -- making decent products ship without putting themselves at risk. I.e. they had a large set of very skilled developers and designers, but that there are more essentials to a successful company than this, and he believed FSS made an oversight there.

Re:Vanity

[Anonymous Coward]

and you get modded offtopic, while the parent is modded interesting... :-)

Easy

[neokushan]

Because smaller companies are more relaxed and not as arsey about hitting deadlines.

Re:Easy

[speedtux]

Because smaller companies are more relaxed and not as arsey about hitting deadlines.

Yeah, small companies simply go out of business when they miss deadlines.

Re:Easy

[neokushan]

It depends on the deadline. Internal deadlines are what I'm referring to. Obviously if a big publisher wants something done by a certain date, it's knuckle-down time until it gets done, same with any company.

a new form of evolution?

[emagery]

Sorry; I just read the intro, and the first thing that clicked into my mind was a phenomenon known as [evolutionary] radiation.. where, a sudden opening in the environment causes species to diverge and experiment and evolve at rapid and experimental rates... this just FEELS the same... that given an industry that is far from 'fully grown', there's so much room for creativity, exploration, new paradigms of self-awareness, that it is having the same effect... a radiation of individuality given a wide expanse of possibilities.

Re: When they're accused of a crime.

[repvik]

Mod up for obvious reference ;)

don't get sick -- Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Sebastopol]

I have had one W2 job in my life

That speaks for itself. You really have had very little experience, and people should take your anecdotal analysis with a grain of salt. I have had many W2 and 1099 jobs, and in the long run I greatly prefer the stability of W2 jobs, even though I really enjoyed the weird hours, huge paychecks, and random nature of my early contracting jobs.

I'd say try it before you get too old, or at least give moonlighting a shot.

Go solo, everyone.

1099 jobs are great when you are young, healthy, and full of piss and vinegar and can afford to start life over again if you screw up. If you want to go solo over age 30, make damn well sure you have a contingency plan, or are networked and diversified out the yin-yang.

Also, don't get sick! Unless you live in a state that has passed laws allowing groups of people to pool money and buy discount healthcare, you are F-U-C-*-E-D. Once you go on record with a HINT of chronic illness, you will very likely not be able to get insurance. The government mandates that insurance companies sell you insurance if you have a pre-existing condition, but they don't mandate the price. You could very easily could end up requiring to pay $3~5k per month for health insurance.

I'm eternally grateful that W2 companies get such great deals on group health coverage.

Re:don't get sick -- Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Not_Even_Bacteria]

I am single. I am also on the autistic spectrum, but not enough to merit public assistance. As for me, I would rather not try to disprove that marriage causes terminal illnesses in females. Gold-diggers need not apply, may they all be raped and die from various opportunistic infections. For all intents and purposes, I will remain single. If you have a sick imagination, sorry, a +1 415 NXX XXXX lifestyle is out of the question.

I had done work on the side, but not enough to justify incorporating and filing five times per year. Unfortunately, I don't live in a jurisdiction that allows single-human corporate entities and I have a hard time trusting people after getting screwed more than once. There is a bright side to being a W2 loser. The law in my jurisdiction is that when one is bought wholesale and sold retail, a shield from personal liability leaps into existence...and I do not have to file five times per year for the privilege. As a last note for comparison. Unemployment may put one on the street, but a tax audit can put one in the slammer.

All this dream chasing is what is killing us.

Re:don't get sick -- Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have had many W2 and 1099 jobs, and in the long run I greatly prefer the stability of W2 jobs, even though I really enjoyed the weird hours, huge paychecks, and random nature of my early contracting jobs."

That speaks for itself. You really have had a very unique experience, and people should take your anecdotal analysis with a grain of salt.

Re:don't get sick -- Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Sebastopol]

nice try.

i didn't assert i was correct. i asserted anecdotal evidence should be taken with a grain of salt, mine included.

that is the key difference.

Re:don't get sick -- Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[CodeBuster]

You could very easily could end up requiring to pay $3~5k per month for health insurance.

So don't have insurance and pay out of pocket instead if that works out to be cheaper. Insurance should not be used for everyday transactions anyway and I have yet to meet a doctor who would not take cash on the barrelhead (and if you know anything about insurance billing and what a headache it can be for doctors then you know how much they appreciate cash basis patients and are willing to negotiate with and accommodate them to avoid third party billing hassles). This one of many reasons why it is imperative to build up a strong financial position before reaching middle and old age, so that one is not limited in negotiations and options by bargaining from a position of weakness rather than a position of strength.

Re:don't get sick -- Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Sebastopol]

So don't have insurance and pay out of pocket instead if that works out to be cheaper. [etc.]

I see your point, but unfortuntely it is based on gambling that nothing bad will happen to you. Not having insurance is like competing in street luge without a helmet. Ah, to be 20 again and feel invincible! For reference: stitches cost a few hundred bucks, an X-ray and bone-setting costs under $10 grand. A real hospital visit costs about three month's salary, and a simple surgery is one year's salary. An anesthesiologist alone costs about $20k just to show up.

This one of many reasons why it is imperative to build up a strong financial position before reaching middle and old age, so that one is not limited in negotiations and options by bargaining from a position of weakness rather than a position of strength.

The first half of that is absolutely correct, but still it is a best-case scenario. Only the super-rich (or super lukcy) can afford the medical treatments associated with later life. I also sincerely doubt you will find a financial planner that says a good retirement plan shouldn't include insurance. As for the second half of that statement -- in the context of the first half -- it sounds like the babbling of a college freshman who just discovered Ayn Rand (hey, we've all been there). Maybe if you were talking about selling cars or negotiating a pay raise, yes, but expecting to negotiate with a surgeon while you're bleeding out is a tad naive, unless you go to Dr. Nick.

Basically, until a balance is found between Big Pharm's reckless profiteering and R&D costs needed to make useful products, health insurance will become a bigger and bigger problem. Perhaps the decision to allow drug ads on TV and in magazines in 1992 is partially responsible, but I digress.

Re:don't get sick -- Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[CodeBuster]

Perhaps I was not clear enough, I do not eschew insurance entirely but rather advocate its judicious use for situations for which it is warranted. A high deductible health insurance plan (HDHP) combined with a health savings account (HSA) very nicely fits the bill. Once the savings ball is rolling you can periodically adjust the deductible as the balance in the account increases or your individual tolerance for risk increases or decreases. Now I will grant you that this is not the best option for everyone. For example, people with regularly recurring medical expenses that are moderately high but not high enough to satisfy the deductible OR people who, through either misfortune or their own doing or both, incur medical expenses in excess of $5 million dollars or so (but really you are screwed anyway at that point because almost nobody could afford to pay out of pocket for those kind of expenses and a state run health program is likely to deny your treatment and let you die anyway because they will not pay a huge amount to save the life a single individual and thereby endanger the solvency of the system for everyone else). However, for most of the rest of us the HDHP + HSA plan is quite viable because many expected medical expenses over one's lifetime are relatively small compared to what can be saved over time in the HSA and involve planned expenses and NOT catastrophic emergency care (which is why the HSA is combined with the HDHP).

Re:don't get sick -- Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Anonymous Coward]

Doctors might take cash, but good luck convincing the hospital that wants to charge you $50-200k for a one-hour surgery. When you buy insurance, you're buying bargaining power (aside from having to argue with your insurance company, but that's another issue.) If you're uninsured, the hospital will charge you grossly in excess of what it actually costs to provide you care, probably to make up for poor uninsured people in the emergency room who can't pay, and insurance companies squeezing down on how much they reimburse.

So yes, it's not really the everyday transactions. At least with pills you can still budget out the large chunk of your paycheck and put it in an HSA. But you absolutely need insurance to deal with the cripplingly expensive cost of hospital stays.

Re:don't get sick -- Re:W2 = loser, 1099 = winner

[Sebastopol]

Thanks for clarifying. That's a very interesting strategy, although I still don't see what it has to do about "negotiating." I agree, it sounds prudent to compare one's current coverage and do a model to see if the premium savings from the HDHP comapred to regular costs plus HSA tax savings are a net gain. This should definitely be investigated by anyone of sound mind and body considering "going solo".

Re: When they're accused of a crime.

[Ted Freeman]

If you have a game to program, if no one else can help you, and if you can find them ...

Misleading Headline

[vga_init]

Darn, and I thought this was going to be about why game developers love to clone Rogue. Man, I love Rogue-likes...

Portability across single-language platforms?

[tepples]

Develop it for the PC but make it portable.

One platform only runs C#, Visual Basic, and other CLR managed languages.[1] One platform only runs Java and other JVM managed languages.[2] One platform only runs JavaScript.[3] One platform only runs ActionScript.[4] One platform only runs C++ well because it has small CPU and small RAM.[5] What's the best way to make a video game engine or other program portable across multiple virtual machines whose sets of compatible programming languages do not overlap much?

[1] Xbox 360 XNA
[2] Mobile phones with Java MIDP
[3] iPhone, unless the developer buys the $3,000 devkit[3a] plus real estate in an AT&T covered zone[3b]
[3a] iMac + iPhone + iPhone activation + iPhone developer activation + 24-month iPhone service plan at $70/mo
[3b] Most notably, Vermont doesn't have AT&T.
[4] Wii Internet Channel
[5] Nintendo DS

Re:Portability across single-language platforms?

[Rycross]

It was an OR not an AND.

Plenty of people do games in C++ on the Wii, Playstation 3, and XBox 360. So if you want to go the route of prototyping and pimping your game to companies, code it in C++, run it on Windows, and then sell your prototype.

If you want to have a hobbyist game, then pick a platform that supports that and use the language they want you to use.

You can always do something like target it towards Linux on the PS3. Yes thats going to seriously limit the kind of graphics you can put out, but it might be a good prototyping platform.

You're going to have to make some compromises. You can't just walk up to Sony and get a dev-kit for the Playstation 3. You either have to prototype your game on one platform and sell it to a company that can get you onto the platforms you want, OR you can find a platform that will let you scratch your itch and then use their language/environment.

If you make something really solid, and you get the opportunity to port it, then I think you'll find the effort put into porting it (even cross-language) will be significantly less than the effort to develop from scratch. There is much that goes into game development that doesn't involve pounding out code.

Re:Portability across single-language platforms?

[xsmasher]

I have to correct [3] - iPhone development costs:

$599 for the Mac Mini - run it headless and remote into it from your other machines.
$399 for the iPod touch. No service fees.
$99 for the iPhone Developer program (you can write code for free, but you need a license to install on your device.)

That's $1100. Not pocket change, but not $3k either.

Exemptions

[Doc Hopper]

I have routinely gotten exemptions for my part-time development work built into my employment contracts.

Keys:
1. Mention the exact projects you are currently working on.
2. Have the writing vetted by your lawyer to ensure that your ideas are protected and do not become property of the company.
3. Be ready to walk away if they aren't willing to alter their NDA/non-compete to accommodate your efforts.

Seriously, I've worked for a lot of different companies and not once has a company refused to adjust their non-compete based on exhibits I include to document my work on free software projects and my personal IT consulting business.

Jay's arrangements with game development studios have actually gone so far as to include support from the company hiring him in the form of art, programming, and other resources for his independent projects. Seriously. Build some negotiating skills and be confident in your ability to find a job. You'll find one willing to work with you.

Mod flamebait, insight-free despite moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

NT

Re:Mod flamebait, insight-free despite moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a response to tepples' posting history. He always complains about that.

Amen

[Doc Hopper]

I now work for UltraMegaCorp (name is changed to protect the guilty) as a UNIX administrator. It's one of the largest software companies in the world. My piece of the pie when it comes to new projects is often to find out that I'm getting shipped some new hardware, and I get to organize deployment. If something goes wrong with the deployment schedule, it's almost always a communication issue, usually something to do with "managing expectations".

When I worked at a startup, I got the whole shooting match. If that project didn't move out on time, I was fully to blame. I was the go-to guy. The hours sucked, the pay was fine, the potentials were limitless, and I lived by my pager or mobile phone.

A part of me really loves that environment. Another part of me really loves the benefits that come with working for a larger company. I compromise: I work a forty-hour week at UltraMegaCorp, then put in 5-10 hours a week on side contracts. For now, it's a good balance. I end up with the same crappy hours, but now I have more control. And I can buy neat toys with the extra income (model airplanes, mostly, but lately it's been motorcycle parts...)

Piracy and game pricing

[Doc Hopper]

Another problem Indies face is managing the pricing expectations of the consumer. The days of the $50 video game are OVER, yet people expect to plunk down only $15 or $20 for an Indy game because the development studio is smaller with a lower budget.

Computer game business models do need to evolve, though I'm not sure in what direction. There need to be tangible benefits to paying for your copy of the game. MMO games seem to have a decent model working for them, but so far most other efforts have really met with limited success. Offering improved music or artwork for registered customers seemed like a pretty good idea with Void War, but I don't think that kind of approach is a potent long-term draw.

Re:Piracy and game pricing

[bigstrat2003]

The days of the $50 video game are OVER...

The prices of games at every store I go to disagree with you.

Re:Piracy and game pricing

[xenocide2]

"Yet people expect to plunk down only $15 or $20 for an Indy game because the development studio is smaller with a lower budget."

Really? You think people know how big the budget to Serious Sam was? I dare say it's more about people getting fed up with high prices. That's your customer as an small dev studio. You make up for marketing with a lower price and clever design. Some places are smart enough to see it coming and adapt. Valve's business these days is based around 20 dollar games. Portal, TF2, CounterStrike, Day of Defeat all started as free designs that Valve integrated, priced, and bundled. They know their greatest competitor, and greatest asset, is students giving their work away for free.

Re:Piracy and game pricing

[Doc Hopper]

Really? You think people know how big the budget to Serious Sam was?

You got me. That's what I get for writing something without thinking it through first. When I go to a game store and plunk down $60 for a new game, I have an expectation of a certain level of quality. If I don't get it, I'm disappointed. When I pop $15 for an indie or small-publisher game, I'm just happy if the quality is playable and interesting.

I dare say it's more about people getting fed up with high prices. That's your customer as an small dev studio.

I don't think so, exclusively. Small dev studios -- at least those I'm aware of -- seem to be much more about finding under-served niche markets than trying to win away FPS or flight simulator fans. Microsoft's XBox Live Arcade has been a huge boon for indie developers, and I expect Apple's store for the iPhone to be the same. Outpost Kaloki, for instance, has built a huge following through extremely unique gameplay: not winning over people from the latest $60 first-person-shooter clone, but by building a community of devoted players by word-of-mouth.

Then again, we may be kind of saying the same thing. Small-time developers lack the resources to create huge worlds, so they have to compete in innovative gameplay. For me, Bejeweled and its sequels were great indie games not because the gameplay itself was so great, but because I could play to the next bonus during an average amount of time sitting on the crapper :)

Bring on more games playable on PDAs while on the john, Indie developers, plzthxu!

Because...

[pdxp]

A lot of successful companies are also very corporate, and as such lack the ability to help their employees feel like they are doing anything for themselves.

Many of us know or have experienced exceptions. If you have, chances are you're still working for the company that gives you that sense of personal progress.

I'm sharing my opinion of this from a nice little Intel cube, and you might be able to guess why I can relate to people like Peeler.

Cheers! But,

[Republican Gun]

be careful. Your comments may be modded flame bait because they differ from the mods opinions.

Ob

[edittard]

How could anybody abandon the steady paychecks, access to the best tools and engines, large teams of skilled colleagues and the glory of working on one of next holiday season's blockbusters

No blackjack? No hookers? I think that's the answer, right there.

Go rogue?

[Hoi Polloi]

They probably go rogue because they are sick of being on the receiving end of stunlocks in battlegrounds all the time.

We're talking about WOW, right?

Through the big-game phase

[caywen]

I think before the 90's, games were the domain of the sole, rogue programmer. Creating the greatest Apple II game ev@r was possible. You don't need pro creative talent to make pixelated blobs to appear and blips/bleeps to happen in a way that is entertaining for the player. In those days, it was about evoking the experience in the mind of the player, not just their ears and eyes. I'm glad to see affordable tools magnify the creativity of the sole programmer such that they can compete again. As long as indie devs continue to understand their roots and don't get caught up in trying to out-Blizzard Blizzard.

Re:Through the big-game phase

[westlake]

In those days, it was about evoking the experience in the mind of the player, not just their ears and eyes.
.

just so long as you remember that King's Quest was the first nail in the coffin for Infocom.

Re:Through the big-game phase

[caywen]

Well, that's actually not against my point. It's more about how amazing Tetris still is and how its impact compares to World of Warcraft.

Not quite, I'm affraid

[Moraelin]

hink the interest is along the same lines of:
Why Actors Go Indie Films

Err... not quite... let's go through those one by one:

How could anybody abandon the multi-million dollar paychecks,

Heh. Some people are under the impression that game programmers end up millionaires, like John Carmack, but the vast majority are actually paid a piss poor wage. And it becomes even less tempting once you do a total of the time worked, including unpaid overtime (some companies don't even just do it for the final crunch, but most of the time), and divide your wage by it.

The inside joke is that they haven't offshored games to India and China yet, because those guys don't work for _that_ little.

So trying for indie, I dunno, seems a lot less of a loss. You don't even need to sell many copies to make the same wage as before.

access to the best directors and writers,

1. Not everyone works with a Sid Meier or Will Wright. There are a lot of game programmers working for a lot less talented designers. In fact, your average entry job probably will be for some no-name company making a flop, and with a designer who makes up for less skill by having a bigger ego.

2. The movie will show _you_ and get you a bunch of fans, if you're a talented actor. Those best directors and writers will make _you_ shine. If you're a talented game programmer, the best you can hope for is that you'll be a name by the half of the credits, and the designer is treated by the press and fanboys as the only one who mattered. It's more akin to being the third cameraman on the credits of a movie. So it's a bit easier to break away as a game programmer, because the ego factor to keep you in line just isn't the same.

3. Those actors are often allowed a lot more creative input, to those directors and writers. Harrison Ford is the perfect example with his changes. Probably the best known being the scene where Indy shoots the swordsman. As a game programmer, probably nobody will give a shit about _your_ vision. The testers have more of a chance to change anything than you do, and God knows that for a bunch of companies the testers are ignored.

4. Up to what age do actors get to play and be worshipped? The average game programmer is chewed up and shit out by the games industry, as a burned out husk, before reaching 30. A lot of them even earlier. Sometimes having celebrities shit on you, still is just being shit upon.

large teams of skilled colleagues

While the games industry does have a couple of very skilled people, the average programmer there is there only because he wanted very little money and generally didn't mind the overtime and being treated badly. And again, will make up for lack of actual skill, by being legends in their own minds.

and the glory of working on one of next holiday season's blockbusters

Most games won't even break even, and end up subsidized from the profits of EA's sports games and the like.

Plus, there's a lot to be said about the "glory" of being one of the guys whose code was launched buggy and untested, and had reviewers and players ranting about poor quality ;)

And again, most of the glory will go to the game designer, while you'll be lost in the credits.

So to sum it all up, being a game programmer is very very unlike being a super-star actor. The whole ego thing that works for actors... well, as a game programmer you're probably more motivated by either (A) a misguided sense of altruism, as in, "ah well, at least I'm doing something useful and making it possible for other people to have fun," or (B) being unrealistic enough or in outright denial about your position and chances for something better. Or often both.

Re:Not quite, I'm affraid

[Machtyn]

I think you missed my point and what I did there. I used the same technique as the parent to change a few words here and there from a section of the topic and made it match the theme of my message. The theme being that, to an outsider looking in, isn't it curious that a developer with a steady income goes to another, startup/indie company with not as steady income. This is the same as an outsider/fan looking at a person like SLJ and wondering why he took a role in a movie like SnakesOAP.

Yes, I know the games industry sucks, especially in a big name company like EA where they're as likely to fire you right before release so the big guys get a bigger chunk of the prophets and you'll be lucky if your name ends up on the list of 100s at the end of the game. That's why I haven't jumped to that industry too quickly.

Re:Not quite, I'm affraid

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The difference is that SLJ is Samuel L Fucking Jackson and has millions from his other movies to fall back on: he doesn't have to work ever. Random game devs are just working stiffs with a somewhat interesting job.

Because they have no other choice

[billcopc]

How could anybody abandon the steady paychecks, access to the best tools and engines, large teams of skilled colleagues and the glory of working on one of next holiday season's blockbusters for a chance to labor in relative obscurity on tiny, niche titles?

Maybe it's because the paychecks are NOT steady, the tools are NOT so great, the colleagues are fresh out of college and kiss too much ass, and their is no glory in being credited on the latest bug-fest of a movie license sellout. I'm looking at you, ElectronicArctivision.

It's often the niche titles that yield the biggest successes. After all, if you're a highly skilled developer or designer, and you're forced to work within the mold of a big-name company, you're probably watching that skill go to waste. Only the freedom of a small, indie shop will give you the room to stretch your imagination and flex your hacking muscle.

Because that's not real

[stonecypher]

How could anybody abandon the steady paychecks, access to the best tools and engines, large teams of skilled colleagues

Yeah, and the streets paved with gold. Because, you know, the game industry isn't run by a group of dinosaurs in a market with too little external pressure to drive out famously bad production practices.

The steady paychecks don't exist in a contracted world. The best tools and engines are things that were shaky when they were one-man hacked together ten years ago in C by someone who thought they should still have been writing assembly. The large teams of skilled colleagues are college kids being paid next to nothing while they're burned out by 70 hour workweeks in day one crunch mode shops.

If game design firms like this existed, the two year attrition in gaming wouldn't be 70%. This article is about fantasies of how the industry works, not realities; that's why the author can't figure out what's going on.

Where's the polish?

[Kneo24]

I clicked on the link to Soldak Entertainment inside the article. What do I find? A cheesy looking website.

It doesn't look too cluttered. It just looks like something a kid made back in 1995. Part of selling yourself or your company is presentation. If the website looks unpolished, what's the chance the average person will stay around? Make it look attractive and you'll keep a person interested, hopefully, a little longer to take a look around.

I've seen other indie developers websites and they put as much effort into their website as they did their game, and it clearly showed, good or bad. It just reinforces the point that a good presentation goes a long way to selling your product.

STEAM Makes this possible

[rahvin112]

Steam makes it possible for independent developers to get wide exposure and delivery of their games. Audiosurf is an independently developed game on steam available for $9.99 that has consistently ranked in the top 10 for sales beating out even major Valve titles like Half Life. The game was developed over the period of a year by one guy in his basement and I wouldn't be surprised if he's made a substantial amount of money off sales possibly even making it possible for him to quit his day job.

Re: When they're accused of a crime.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

And even several games later, their NPCs still can't hit anything they shoot at.

Kobolds stink!

[Anonymous Coward]

> User Killed by Pun lvl. 2 with 0 XP.

To be fair, who COULDN'T be killed by Pun-Pun?

Stupid kobolds.

entrepeneur economy

[heroine]

Get used to having to sustain your own business if U want to survive. The days of working for someone else are ending because workers are commodities. Look at corporate profit growth by raising prices: 30% here, 40% there. Why do you think they're not passing that on to salaries?

A bit more

[dbIII]

One famous example was a man that would always get asthma attacks when he went to see baseball in a paticular stadium and never at any other time. It turned out there was something on the peanuts there which he was not exposed to at any other time, including eating peanuts at other stadiums.

I'm no doctor but I heard this listening to one on the radio - there's programs from 1997 onwards here searchable by subject:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/

go rogue...

[Anonymous Coward]

go nethack... slash'em all!

your problem, not mine

[speedtux]

I get into piracy arguments with other folks all the time. They talk about how they want "DRM-free" music, information wants to be free, most modern music is crap anyways, etc. But when it comes down to it, they're just being cheap.

Bullshit. I have paid for every CD, video game, and book that I own. But if it comes with with DRM or copy protection, I will return it and demand my money back, and I will warn other people not to buy it.

I have no idea how well DRM or copy protection works against piracy, but I don't give a damn. If your non-DRM'ed game gets pirated so much that you can't make a living, go figure out a different business model. The world doesn't owe you a living as an independent developer or musician.

Re:your problem, not mine

[microTodd]

I have no idea how well DRM or copy protection works against piracy, but I don't give a damn. If your non-DRM'ed game gets pirated so much that you can't make a living, go figure out a different business model. The world doesn't owe you a living as an independent developer or musician.

This is actually one of the best approaches to the DRM/piracy issue I've heard.

The funny thing to me has always been that the ability to "unlawfully copy" (or whatever the proper term is) has existed since the printing press, the cassette tape, etc. And yet plenty of people and business have managed to make their living just fine.

Re:your problem, not mine

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's your problem. The coder can go work on databases. But you no longer have any games.
Enjoy the cup and ball kid.

Re:your problem, not mine

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's your problem. The coder can go work on databases. But you no longer have any games.

No problem. I can do without the commercial crap that's come out over the last decade.

Hoho. What planet are you from?

[jamie(really)]

How could anybody abandon the tiny paychecks, access to obscure tools and engines, large teams of tools and working over next holiday season for a chance to labor with skilled colleagues on interesting titles?

There, fixed that for ya.