Do independent developers make indie games?
by Dan MacDonald · 12/19/2005 (1:42 am) · 19 comments
Casual games are here and they are huge, it seems you can't turn around without bumping into another indie making money cloning the latest casual hit. To see what I'm talking about look at the games in the following blog (www.1goodgame.com/blog/). It seems knocking off the current hot game design in the casual games market is a great way to make some easy cash and when ever you have easy cash you have a small army of people lining up to capitalize on it.
This mad rush has got me to question the definition of an indie game. In the past we've defined independent developers as people who make games without the controlling interests of a publisher, client, producer, middle manger, etc. telling them how to make the game. In essence a developer who is free to pursue their own interests and sensibilities in game development. They call the shots. This is a good definition. We've also defined "indie games" as games created by "independent developers".
I don't think that definition of "indie games" fits, it's not merely enough to be created by an independent developer. You would think that independent developers free to work on whatever they choose would choose to work on gameplay and game designs like the ones that inspired them to become game developers. Instead what we tend to see (and not so much in this community) are developers who turn around and constrain their games to the same narrow view of games that the publishers and big business counterparts do. They go out, look at what's selling and try to make something similar to capitalize or share the success of that hot selling game.
So what is an "indie game"? I would like to apply the same definition to the game as we do to the developer. A game that is free to become what it wants to be, a design that's not constrained by what the current hot market is, or mechanics defined by the mechanics of the current best selling games. In short a game that is a result of the passions of the developer creating it, as opposed to a product designed to sell in a lucrative market.
What's the point of labeling certain games as "indie" if they are indistinguishable from their "not indie" counterparts. If my casual game looks just like a contracted playfirst game then what's the point of differentiating one as indie and one as not? There is no point, if anything it's detrimental to the independent developer. Indie ends up with the same connotation as shareware.
Indie games should inspire people, players should experience something different, something fresh, something that could only be a product of someone who was free to follow their own passions. It doesn't have to be innovative or even original, a side scrolling shooter for example, but a side scrolling shooter that is obviously a labor of love for the developer where special care has been taken to make sure that the game is fun and exciting. You can tell when a game has been rushed to market and when a game has been painstakingly crafted by someone who cared about it.
I'm not saying that indie games are games made "for the love" and that anything that's profitable is not indie. On the contrary I think that "indie games" can be very profitable, just not in the traditional ways ( stealing market share from bejeweled by adding yet another bejeweled clone ). When developers follow their own interests and passions they will find new markets with people who their game resonates with. It might not be right off the bat, so keep your costs low and don't expect to make a full time living off your first game. There will always be room in a market of sameness for passionately created, fresh games. This is the spirit of independent development and this is what sets it apart from all other types of development.
This mad rush has got me to question the definition of an indie game. In the past we've defined independent developers as people who make games without the controlling interests of a publisher, client, producer, middle manger, etc. telling them how to make the game. In essence a developer who is free to pursue their own interests and sensibilities in game development. They call the shots. This is a good definition. We've also defined "indie games" as games created by "independent developers".
I don't think that definition of "indie games" fits, it's not merely enough to be created by an independent developer. You would think that independent developers free to work on whatever they choose would choose to work on gameplay and game designs like the ones that inspired them to become game developers. Instead what we tend to see (and not so much in this community) are developers who turn around and constrain their games to the same narrow view of games that the publishers and big business counterparts do. They go out, look at what's selling and try to make something similar to capitalize or share the success of that hot selling game.
So what is an "indie game"? I would like to apply the same definition to the game as we do to the developer. A game that is free to become what it wants to be, a design that's not constrained by what the current hot market is, or mechanics defined by the mechanics of the current best selling games. In short a game that is a result of the passions of the developer creating it, as opposed to a product designed to sell in a lucrative market.
What's the point of labeling certain games as "indie" if they are indistinguishable from their "not indie" counterparts. If my casual game looks just like a contracted playfirst game then what's the point of differentiating one as indie and one as not? There is no point, if anything it's detrimental to the independent developer. Indie ends up with the same connotation as shareware.
Indie games should inspire people, players should experience something different, something fresh, something that could only be a product of someone who was free to follow their own passions. It doesn't have to be innovative or even original, a side scrolling shooter for example, but a side scrolling shooter that is obviously a labor of love for the developer where special care has been taken to make sure that the game is fun and exciting. You can tell when a game has been rushed to market and when a game has been painstakingly crafted by someone who cared about it.
I'm not saying that indie games are games made "for the love" and that anything that's profitable is not indie. On the contrary I think that "indie games" can be very profitable, just not in the traditional ways ( stealing market share from bejeweled by adding yet another bejeweled clone ). When developers follow their own interests and passions they will find new markets with people who their game resonates with. It might not be right off the bat, so keep your costs low and don't expect to make a full time living off your first game. There will always be room in a market of sameness for passionately created, fresh games. This is the spirit of independent development and this is what sets it apart from all other types of development.
About the author
#2
It's really sad to read on the site you pasted:
"Anyway, I
12/19/2005 (5:11 am)
Nice thoughts Dan. I totally agree on the difference between contracted casual games (wich looks fake, cause *only* money was the goal) and what should be called indie games (made to actually be played and enjoyed).It's really sad to read on the site you pasted:
"Anyway, I
#3
I've got NO qualms about cloning things, because almost all games have something they base things off, for instance control systems for a football game, or different views for a action adventure game.
Cloning is just production of games to make a commercial profit. Isnt that what capitalism is all about?
Of course, I'm not then going to try and lambast anyone for copying my copy of the copy :)
Just look at it from the buyers point of view though, they have essentially NO memory. They have no baggage and history to tell them that "hey, I've seen this before, these guys are ripping us off". No, the casual punter sees a copy of his/her fave game and says "hey, I loved that game I stopped playing 3 weeks ago, this one is new and sparkly, so lets have it!".
The days of casual games clones are not going to hang around too long, so milk them while they have thier udders out is what I say!!!
Mooo!
12/19/2005 (6:30 am)
Hehehe... I find the whole cloning argument kind of funny. Seeing as there is money to be made, I figure I might as well make it!I've got NO qualms about cloning things, because almost all games have something they base things off, for instance control systems for a football game, or different views for a action adventure game.
Cloning is just production of games to make a commercial profit. Isnt that what capitalism is all about?
Of course, I'm not then going to try and lambast anyone for copying my copy of the copy :)
Just look at it from the buyers point of view though, they have essentially NO memory. They have no baggage and history to tell them that "hey, I've seen this before, these guys are ripping us off". No, the casual punter sees a copy of his/her fave game and says "hey, I loved that game I stopped playing 3 weeks ago, this one is new and sparkly, so lets have it!".
The days of casual games clones are not going to hang around too long, so milk them while they have thier udders out is what I say!!!
Mooo!
#4
It's also one of the effects of quantity low-budget production. Casual games, even though they take polish to sell, are still among the smallest ones you can sell today. But unlike clone games at the AAA level today, they can't differentiate themselves in the playable content area. Casuals don't usually have unique level design, gripping storylines, or award-winning 3d effects. And they don't have simulation elements that can be adapted to new scenarios, ("X" Tycoon, "Plane" Flightsim "Year") which *really* leaves them low on originality.
Though I have to admit that a casual game that had all of those would be quite interesting....it would take a lot of design work to come up with something that could do that.
12/19/2005 (11:44 am)
It's a truism of any creative industry that you'll see far more knock-offs than originals. The only time the picture is different is when some entity can impose filters on what reaches the public, and that certainly doesn't happen in online sales. Probability dictates that some of the knock-offs(I'm thinking of something like Snood) will succeed in finding and capturing a different segment of the market from the original game.It's also one of the effects of quantity low-budget production. Casual games, even though they take polish to sell, are still among the smallest ones you can sell today. But unlike clone games at the AAA level today, they can't differentiate themselves in the playable content area. Casuals don't usually have unique level design, gripping storylines, or award-winning 3d effects. And they don't have simulation elements that can be adapted to new scenarios, ("X" Tycoon, "Plane" Flightsim "Year") which *really* leaves them low on originality.
Though I have to admit that a casual game that had all of those would be quite interesting....it would take a lot of design work to come up with something that could do that.
#5
I would like to clarify that I do not take any issue with independent developers making casual games or clones. We all gotta feed our families some how, seems like right now casual is a nice way to pay the bills. I know a number of fulltime indies and frankly when you are full time you can't really afford the luxury of making purely "independent" games, you are constrained by what you think will sell.
That said, I have great respect for indies who look at what is hot in the market right now, and try to move it forward. Look at the current state of casual game design and try to make something that fits in, but is different at the same time. Like looking at luxor and identifying the design elements. Level progression towards failure, missing shots advances that progression, matching 3 rewinds that progression and then making a game that doesn't have balls in trenches where you match 3 of the same color. Instead creating something totally different that happens to share the same abstract game design element, I think there's a lot of creativity and thought that goes into this process and I certianly appreciate that, over a pure clone.
However, as I said, sometimes a pure clone is the right thing for an indie. I just want us to be honest when we create games that really arn't all that independent and not try to promote them as being independent games.
There really isn't a market for "indie" games that has critical mass yet, or enough games to even sustain it in the same way that casual games have critical mass and sustain developers. Indie should not become synonymous with casual, I do believe with enough independent developers making indie games we will soon be at a place where a truly intendment title can make a lot of money and have a market with enough eyeballs that other's can leverage as well.
12/19/2005 (11:54 am)
@Phil:I would like to clarify that I do not take any issue with independent developers making casual games or clones. We all gotta feed our families some how, seems like right now casual is a nice way to pay the bills. I know a number of fulltime indies and frankly when you are full time you can't really afford the luxury of making purely "independent" games, you are constrained by what you think will sell.
That said, I have great respect for indies who look at what is hot in the market right now, and try to move it forward. Look at the current state of casual game design and try to make something that fits in, but is different at the same time. Like looking at luxor and identifying the design elements. Level progression towards failure, missing shots advances that progression, matching 3 rewinds that progression and then making a game that doesn't have balls in trenches where you match 3 of the same color. Instead creating something totally different that happens to share the same abstract game design element, I think there's a lot of creativity and thought that goes into this process and I certianly appreciate that, over a pure clone.
However, as I said, sometimes a pure clone is the right thing for an indie. I just want us to be honest when we create games that really arn't all that independent and not try to promote them as being independent games.
There really isn't a market for "indie" games that has critical mass yet, or enough games to even sustain it in the same way that casual games have critical mass and sustain developers. Indie should not become synonymous with casual, I do believe with enough independent developers making indie games we will soon be at a place where a truly intendment title can make a lot of money and have a market with enough eyeballs that other's can leverage as well.
#6
12/19/2005 (12:27 pm)
Indie to me just means nothing more than making games yourself initialy without external funding. If they want to copy someone elses game and make a quick $ thats up to them. Most indie games aren't that original anyway, and could be considered knock offs by some.
#7
"You can tell when a game has been rushed to market and when a game has been painstakingly crafted by someone who cared about it."
12/19/2005 (1:02 pm)
For me, this is the quotable line:"You can tell when a game has been rushed to market and when a game has been painstakingly crafted by someone who cared about it."
#8
Of course my motto stands:
"Get paid to make games, don't make games to get paid"
So, I'm really not interested in making a game just to make money. Sure I'd like to make some money for making the game I'm inspired to make but I'm only good at making games when I'm working on something that I'm passionate about.
Making a knock-off in my mind is fine. Aerial Antics is a partial knock-off of Pilotwings ... but I didn't make it because Pilotwings was selling like hotcakes and I wanted in on the money. I made it because there wasn't enough jet pack levels in Pilotwings and I've always wanted to expand on that aspect ... I still do! I've been dreaming up that game since I was 13 ... honestly it's still not half the game I thought up back then ... but it's a beginning.
The point is ... make something like this because you're trying to offer up more ... you're trying to offer up what you wanted from the original as a player but weren't given by the original developer. Money doesn't enter into that equation BTW.
Dan has it right in many regards though ...
Even looking at my first statement ... about clones ... both the games and the developers. If we who are independent aren't making something different ... aren't we still just being dragged along by the publishers? If not the publishers ... then the same force that drags them at least. That's not what we should be doing.
Following the money trail doesn't lead to a better state of the art ... nor does it lead to the greatest profit. I think you're better off doing something else for money and still focus your game development energies on something that you actually care about rather than saturate the market with anymore shovelware. All that does is lower the perceived value of our entire industry.
12/19/2005 (1:31 pm)
I'm with Adrian mostly ... let us developers make the game we want to make whether it's a clone or not ... just so long as I'm not the clone in someone else's army ... if you catch my drift.Of course my motto stands:
"Get paid to make games, don't make games to get paid"
So, I'm really not interested in making a game just to make money. Sure I'd like to make some money for making the game I'm inspired to make but I'm only good at making games when I'm working on something that I'm passionate about.
Making a knock-off in my mind is fine. Aerial Antics is a partial knock-off of Pilotwings ... but I didn't make it because Pilotwings was selling like hotcakes and I wanted in on the money. I made it because there wasn't enough jet pack levels in Pilotwings and I've always wanted to expand on that aspect ... I still do! I've been dreaming up that game since I was 13 ... honestly it's still not half the game I thought up back then ... but it's a beginning.
The point is ... make something like this because you're trying to offer up more ... you're trying to offer up what you wanted from the original as a player but weren't given by the original developer. Money doesn't enter into that equation BTW.
Dan has it right in many regards though ...
Even looking at my first statement ... about clones ... both the games and the developers. If we who are independent aren't making something different ... aren't we still just being dragged along by the publishers? If not the publishers ... then the same force that drags them at least. That's not what we should be doing.
Following the money trail doesn't lead to a better state of the art ... nor does it lead to the greatest profit. I think you're better off doing something else for money and still focus your game development energies on something that you actually care about rather than saturate the market with anymore shovelware. All that does is lower the perceived value of our entire industry.
#9
Sometimes you get paid for what you make and sometimes you make what you get paid for. Anyone who wants to stay 'pure' to making only what they love is either going to starve or live off of someone else or going to have to do a day job. Yes, there are a few out there who only do what they love and get paid for it, but guess what, they didn't always, they work for decades to get to that point, even if they are a prodigy they work most of their childhood instead of having a childhood and that's the real point here: being an artist who only does what they love takes massive sacrifice. Me... I'm willing to sacrifice trading some of the work I love for work I get paid for cause I would rather be making a game that I don't feel love for and get paid than do a day job that I don't love and get paid cause I would rather be making any game than none.
12/19/2005 (4:51 pm)
I like to follow the tried and true: there's the work that pays the bills and then there's what I am really passionate about. I've known alot of traditional artist who have been artists for longer than digital games have existed. They ALL told me that if you want to make it as an artist that you have to be either living off of someone else(parents, spouse, inheritance) or willing to do the commercial work that pays the bills. That's just a reality of being a professional artist. It's called professional because you get paid. Otherwise you are just an amatuer: an artist who only does it for the love of it. Sometimes you get paid for what you make and sometimes you make what you get paid for. Anyone who wants to stay 'pure' to making only what they love is either going to starve or live off of someone else or going to have to do a day job. Yes, there are a few out there who only do what they love and get paid for it, but guess what, they didn't always, they work for decades to get to that point, even if they are a prodigy they work most of their childhood instead of having a childhood and that's the real point here: being an artist who only does what they love takes massive sacrifice. Me... I'm willing to sacrifice trading some of the work I love for work I get paid for cause I would rather be making a game that I don't feel love for and get paid than do a day job that I don't love and get paid cause I would rather be making any game than none.
#10
1 Do not say, "Why were the old days better than these?" For it is not wise to ask such questions.
2. Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
I don't whine about the 'good ol days' but I learn from past mistakes and successes.
12/19/2005 (4:58 pm)
Also, there has always been 'crap' in the art industry and there always will be. And there will always be people who say that art is going down the crapper. This is not new. Professional art is like politics, there is nothing new under the sun. Everytime I hear someone say that games are getting stale... I just laugh... cause games are not even a new born industry yet... they are still in the f'ing womb and already they are getting stale! LOL Read some history guys... this happens to every generation that ever had professional art. There are 2 saying that I like to find a balanace with.1 Do not say, "Why were the old days better than these?" For it is not wise to ask such questions.
2. Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
I don't whine about the 'good ol days' but I learn from past mistakes and successes.
#11
Indies won't always make independent games, sometimes they'll make straight up money hungry clones, but that doesn't mean they aren't indie, just that they decided to make some money with a game.
Now they may take the funds from that clone and go make a game that matters, an independent game, not limited purely by profitability, or they might make another clone. Either way their still indie, I just want to make a case for indies to make a few more independent games, because honestly, that's what I like to play :)
12/19/2005 (6:17 pm)
Actually I'm with Adrian too, being indie just means that you are free to make your own choices. (and I tried to capture this in my original post)Indies won't always make independent games, sometimes they'll make straight up money hungry clones, but that doesn't mean they aren't indie, just that they decided to make some money with a game.
Now they may take the funds from that clone and go make a game that matters, an independent game, not limited purely by profitability, or they might make another clone. Either way their still indie, I just want to make a case for indies to make a few more independent games, because honestly, that's what I like to play :)
#12
12/21/2005 (5:02 am)
Unfortunatly, it isn't just some indies cloning populor games. Look at the amount of GTA rip offs? maybe we live in a greedy world, or maybe people want to make a hit, so it must tick the right boxes. My development team are working on something that is totally fun to play and fun to develop. The idea of putting something in is based on a score of 1 through 10 on how fun it is, not how well has it sold before.
#13
It does concern me just how many ripoff casual games are popping up. (Im not into the 'casual' scene so what do I know though.) Seems though, that now indies are not fighting for the big bucks, but fighting for the nickles and dimes. I guess trully cool indie games will always stand out, but when there is a sea of them, the buyer may turn sour on the whole scene.
Finally, like what Phil said, unless truly unique, most games fit into genre. If your game follows components of that genre, you cannot help but clone, because its part of the gameplay. People get bored, so gameplay mechanics get borrowed from here and there. Evolution of a capitalism in the marketplace. Create, iterate, improve, borrow, repackage, copy, exploit, etc.
Cheers, John.
12/21/2005 (1:17 pm)
I like *some* of what you point out Dan. I dont like this idea that unless your game is unique, it isnt 'indie' enough. Your basically trying to equate quality with a team/company's indie-ness. I prefer the classic defintion. I have no problem with you wanting to distinguish titles, but thats something different in my opinion.It does concern me just how many ripoff casual games are popping up. (Im not into the 'casual' scene so what do I know though.) Seems though, that now indies are not fighting for the big bucks, but fighting for the nickles and dimes. I guess trully cool indie games will always stand out, but when there is a sea of them, the buyer may turn sour on the whole scene.
Finally, like what Phil said, unless truly unique, most games fit into genre. If your game follows components of that genre, you cannot help but clone, because its part of the gameplay. People get bored, so gameplay mechanics get borrowed from here and there. Evolution of a capitalism in the marketplace. Create, iterate, improve, borrow, repackage, copy, exploit, etc.
Cheers, John.
#14
I seem to be having a hard time communicating, but I
12/21/2005 (2:37 pm)
"Your basically trying to equate quality with a team/company's indie-ness."I seem to be having a hard time communicating, but I
#15
Don't worry about what people think of "Independent Games" or "Independent Developers". Make a game. Release it. Enjoy the fact that some people enjoy playing it. Don't concern yourself about letting them know you're "indie" or if someone doesn't pay for the download because they think you are. Then you won't be concerned when someone besmirches the "indie name". =)
-R
(punk before you were) ;)
independent != unprofessional
12/21/2005 (6:33 pm)
Gah this all sounds like kids talking about "what is real punk?" when I was 13.Don't worry about what people think of "Independent Games" or "Independent Developers". Make a game. Release it. Enjoy the fact that some people enjoy playing it. Don't concern yourself about letting them know you're "indie" or if someone doesn't pay for the download because they think you are. Then you won't be concerned when someone besmirches the "indie name". =)
-R
(punk before you were) ;)
independent != unprofessional
#16
12/21/2005 (6:48 pm)
Aye, it always seems that people aren't happy with definitions when words HAVE them. I think some folks are using the word "indie" when what they MEAN is to use "unique" or perhaps "creative". These words exist, so why not just use them? It is true that many independent teams do not create uniquely original or creative titles. To say that they do not create indie games, however, just strikes me as odd. Are there not enough words that we need to confuse the language further by tacking more definitions to those that only have a few?
#17
If there's nothing that differentiates indie games from everything else then what's the point of being independent? In almost every other industry independent is associated creativity, passion, conviction. Why can't we have the same attributes characterize indie games?
For some reason everyone seems to be rushing to call themselves "indie" and become a member of some perceived "indie" movement, but no one wants to make games that are any different then what Playfirst and other publishers bid out as contract work.
So what is it? If you make games with identical, themes, design, mechanics, and production values as Playfirst casual games what does it matter if you do it under contract to them or if you do it yourself? I guess if you do it yourself you can call yourself "independent", but there is practically no difference, you produce the same games in either case.
The thing is, doing it on your own (independently) means, is that you don
12/22/2005 (12:59 am)
Well let me just ask this, If your game is indistinguishable from a game created under contract to Playfirst then what is the point of calling it "independent"? Differentiating is pointless and irrelevant, if anything it's in your best interest to appear equal with playfirst in the eyes of the casual consumer.If there's nothing that differentiates indie games from everything else then what's the point of being independent? In almost every other industry independent is associated creativity, passion, conviction. Why can't we have the same attributes characterize indie games?
For some reason everyone seems to be rushing to call themselves "indie" and become a member of some perceived "indie" movement, but no one wants to make games that are any different then what Playfirst and other publishers bid out as contract work.
So what is it? If you make games with identical, themes, design, mechanics, and production values as Playfirst casual games what does it matter if you do it under contract to them or if you do it yourself? I guess if you do it yourself you can call yourself "independent", but there is practically no difference, you produce the same games in either case.
The thing is, doing it on your own (independently) means, is that you don
#18
I think the core issue you're facing is that you want "independent" to be your publisher. You want it to do the marketing for you and instantly tell people that your games have love. You want it to be a AAA corporation that everyone respects not a no name shovelware factory. You think your publisher broke some contract with you when they started allowing shovelware to be pushed out alongside your AAA title.
"Independent developers" did not one day magically sell out. GAMES BECAME EASY TO MAKE. The easier it is for games to be made, the more 'people' (not 'designers') are going to make them.
I've ridden both sides of the fence. I will tell you very clearly life is much easier when you work for a successful game company. You spend more time in meetings than you do building or designing anything. You go out to lunch. You can walk to a cube and bullshit about a possible direction for your work at any time. and at the end of the month... YOU STILL GET PAID. Nice.
Now these 'independent' developers making casual games that you're so quick to belittle don't have any of those luxuries. They work all day and all night on their ripoff games. They struggle with design to differentiate themselves in order to grab their 1% conversion rate from demo to paid download. They worry at the end of the month if they're going to be able to pay their bills.
Both people can work on the game they LOVE after work but like Anton says above you gotta decide how your bills get paid. In fact it's more likely that the guy working at a successful game company by day will get more done on his passion than the guy burned out on trying to eek a living off of casual games. But which would you respect more? Neither are really helping the industry grow. Maybe you'd prefer they become check-out clerks at the grocery store and live in a shoe-box apartment. You are not any better than them just because you chose a different day job.
Further... innovation is hard. There are a million games that let you click your mouse, wiggle your joystick, and play your keyboard in just about every way imaginable. The world isn't made up of shining stars. Most of the designers I've ever met are simply iterating the games they loved as a child. Occasionally those games are spiced up and really change the way the industry heads but if that's the case... the iterations of that game will come in short order.
You're upset that what you loved as a child is actually a business. Trip Hawkins sold games in zip lock bags because he wanted to make money and created an entire industry off of people's loves and passions. It's ok, I was upset when I figured that out too. However it's unfair to attack people trying to make their living out on their own just because you want the rights to their "independent" title.
12/22/2005 (7:21 am)
There's only two posts above yours but I don't know who exactly you're addressing with the latest rant =)I think the core issue you're facing is that you want "independent" to be your publisher. You want it to do the marketing for you and instantly tell people that your games have love. You want it to be a AAA corporation that everyone respects not a no name shovelware factory. You think your publisher broke some contract with you when they started allowing shovelware to be pushed out alongside your AAA title.
"Independent developers" did not one day magically sell out. GAMES BECAME EASY TO MAKE. The easier it is for games to be made, the more 'people' (not 'designers') are going to make them.
I've ridden both sides of the fence. I will tell you very clearly life is much easier when you work for a successful game company. You spend more time in meetings than you do building or designing anything. You go out to lunch. You can walk to a cube and bullshit about a possible direction for your work at any time. and at the end of the month... YOU STILL GET PAID. Nice.
Now these 'independent' developers making casual games that you're so quick to belittle don't have any of those luxuries. They work all day and all night on their ripoff games. They struggle with design to differentiate themselves in order to grab their 1% conversion rate from demo to paid download. They worry at the end of the month if they're going to be able to pay their bills.
Both people can work on the game they LOVE after work but like Anton says above you gotta decide how your bills get paid. In fact it's more likely that the guy working at a successful game company by day will get more done on his passion than the guy burned out on trying to eek a living off of casual games. But which would you respect more? Neither are really helping the industry grow. Maybe you'd prefer they become check-out clerks at the grocery store and live in a shoe-box apartment. You are not any better than them just because you chose a different day job.
Further... innovation is hard. There are a million games that let you click your mouse, wiggle your joystick, and play your keyboard in just about every way imaginable. The world isn't made up of shining stars. Most of the designers I've ever met are simply iterating the games they loved as a child. Occasionally those games are spiced up and really change the way the industry heads but if that's the case... the iterations of that game will come in short order.
You're upset that what you loved as a child is actually a business. Trip Hawkins sold games in zip lock bags because he wanted to make money and created an entire industry off of people's loves and passions. It's ok, I was upset when I figured that out too. However it's unfair to attack people trying to make their living out on their own just because you want the rights to their "independent" title.
#19
12/23/2005 (4:23 pm)
Something seems to be happening with the comments, they appear to be getting truncated artifically? 
Torque Owner Teromous