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

[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.

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

[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

[kv9]

how about a car analogy?

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

[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...

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.

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 ?

[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.

Gone Rogue ... RPG...

[PrescriptionWarning]

R.I.P

User Killed by Pun lvl. 2 with 0 XP.

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

[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

[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]

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

[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

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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

Easy

[neokushan]

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

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.

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

[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).

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.

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

[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.

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.