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

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?

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.

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

[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

[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]

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

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.

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: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: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: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: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

[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

[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.