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?

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: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: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.