Indie = unsuccessful?
by Weston · in General Discussion · 10/28/2007 (2:06 am) · 21 replies
Just a quick question I've had for a while. I'd like to get thoughts on it from this group.
It seems like there is a resistance to calling successful independent companies (Like ID, valve, or bungie) "indie".
So I'm curious as to what "Indie" means. In music it seems like you are no longer Indie as soon as you've become successful. Does the same qualification apply to Indie games? Are companies like ID or Valve no longer Indie because they're successful? As soon as you get a publishing contract, or sell 100k units, are you no longer Indie?
I love the indie spirit, the commitment to retaining control. But it would be sad if you can only claim to be Indie if you only sell a few copies of your game.
Do you have to be a commercial failure to be Indie?
It seems like there is a resistance to calling successful independent companies (Like ID, valve, or bungie) "indie".
So I'm curious as to what "Indie" means. In music it seems like you are no longer Indie as soon as you've become successful. Does the same qualification apply to Indie games? Are companies like ID or Valve no longer Indie because they're successful? As soon as you get a publishing contract, or sell 100k units, are you no longer Indie?
I love the indie spirit, the commitment to retaining control. But it would be sad if you can only claim to be Indie if you only sell a few copies of your game.
Do you have to be a commercial failure to be Indie?
About the author
#2
Indie games are video games that are created independently of the financial backing of a large publishing company. These games generally have a small or non-existent budget and are often primarily available online or through friend-to-friend sharing, although in some cases budgets can run in the millions, and indie games have appeared on consoles and in game stores.
The term is a video game industry analog to "independent film".
Typically when indie games are being created, there is an individual or a small team of up to 10 people, depending on the type of game in question and its complexity. For larger, more complex video games this usually includes 2D and 3D artists, programmers, musician, etc, while other forms, such as RPGs, roguelikes or Flash games, may require only an individual effort. These games may take years to be constructed from the ground up or can be completed in a matter of days or even hours depending on complexity, participants and design goal. Indie games are often being developed in spare time and spare space (homes, garages, basements, parties, etc).
10/28/2007 (7:07 am)
Pulled this from wiki:Indie games are video games that are created independently of the financial backing of a large publishing company. These games generally have a small or non-existent budget and are often primarily available online or through friend-to-friend sharing, although in some cases budgets can run in the millions, and indie games have appeared on consoles and in game stores.
The term is a video game industry analog to "independent film".
Typically when indie games are being created, there is an individual or a small team of up to 10 people, depending on the type of game in question and its complexity. For larger, more complex video games this usually includes 2D and 3D artists, programmers, musician, etc, while other forms, such as RPGs, roguelikes or Flash games, may require only an individual effort. These games may take years to be constructed from the ground up or can be completed in a matter of days or even hours depending on complexity, participants and design goal. Indie games are often being developed in spare time and spare space (homes, garages, basements, parties, etc).
#3
To me this wouldn't disqualify a number of large studios. I'm not totally sure of the financial make up of each game budget, but I imagine many are independently financed. And what constitutes a 'large' publishing company? If a game is funded by GG/IAC, are they no longer Indie?
10/28/2007 (7:24 am)
Quote:Indie games are video games that are created independently of the financial backing of a large publishing company.
To me this wouldn't disqualify a number of large studios. I'm not totally sure of the financial make up of each game budget, but I imagine many are independently financed. And what constitutes a 'large' publishing company? If a game is funded by GG/IAC, are they no longer Indie?
#4
Personally, I have been pretty critical in the past about studios that obviously had outside funding and have been able to call the production that have worked on "independent". So to me I guess I would say that if you have outside funding you aren't technicly an indie.
With that said however, I think there needs to be a new category of sorts for companies like your or mine for example that are small shops making games that are well over 50% self funded at the very least. Garagegames created the whole "indie" name since calling us "shareware" developers doesnt resonate very well (even if it is what we are). So maybe with this IAC/IA thing in place theres a need for a new label for small studios that fit into this new mold. Not quite "indie" in the truest sense, but not quite mainstream either selling our blood and souls for publisher money against future royalties :)
Logan
10/28/2007 (12:13 pm)
Thats the million dollar question I ask myself every year Weston. What defines an indie and what doesn't. Personally, I have been pretty critical in the past about studios that obviously had outside funding and have been able to call the production that have worked on "independent". So to me I guess I would say that if you have outside funding you aren't technicly an indie.
With that said however, I think there needs to be a new category of sorts for companies like your or mine for example that are small shops making games that are well over 50% self funded at the very least. Garagegames created the whole "indie" name since calling us "shareware" developers doesnt resonate very well (even if it is what we are). So maybe with this IAC/IA thing in place theres a need for a new label for small studios that fit into this new mold. Not quite "indie" in the truest sense, but not quite mainstream either selling our blood and souls for publisher money against future royalties :)
Logan
#5
Dependent, Independent, and Indie
Gimme That Ol' Time Indie Development
Indie is a marketing term. It's designates us as the underdog, the David vs. Goliath, the anti-establishment sorts. Once you become too big, you cease to be indie and start becoming the establishment. The Man. The cost of too much success. And dang it, most of us would be willing to deal with that cost. But we do tend to acknowledge kinship with Valve & id, at least.
Anyway - it's generally acknowledged that if you aren't owned or affiliated with a major studio, and the game under development has NO controlling interest outside the creative team making it, then it's indie. While that's not necessarily the same as being "self-funded," it's pretty close.
10/29/2007 (8:26 pm)
What Is An Indie Game?Dependent, Independent, and Indie
Gimme That Ol' Time Indie Development
Indie is a marketing term. It's designates us as the underdog, the David vs. Goliath, the anti-establishment sorts. Once you become too big, you cease to be indie and start becoming the establishment. The Man. The cost of too much success. And dang it, most of us would be willing to deal with that cost. But we do tend to acknowledge kinship with Valve & id, at least.
Anyway - it's generally acknowledged that if you aren't owned or affiliated with a major studio, and the game under development has NO controlling interest outside the creative team making it, then it's indie. While that's not necessarily the same as being "self-funded," it's pretty close.
#6
Both of your comments are good. i agree with them. I have a small team of people. doing this on spare time, with our own money outa pocket. That i think classifies me as indie i think.
I like being an indie, no expectation, no deadlines, just the shear enjoyment of the process. WIth the only hope that one day maybe as an indie we might make a game that more than one other person outside the dev team will enjoy playing.
Cheers to being an indie developer. and all it's pains and heartaches.
10/29/2007 (10:11 pm)
@LFoster and Jay Barnson:Both of your comments are good. i agree with them. I have a small team of people. doing this on spare time, with our own money outa pocket. That i think classifies me as indie i think.
I like being an indie, no expectation, no deadlines, just the shear enjoyment of the process. WIth the only hope that one day maybe as an indie we might make a game that more than one other person outside the dev team will enjoy playing.
Cheers to being an indie developer. and all it's pains and heartaches.
#7
Personally, I agree with Jay pretty much--although I would call them "professional indies", whereas Roland's description is more of a regular "indie"...although for quite a while anyone at all, successful (released game) or not was called indie.
It's an interesting definition of a group that has certainly evolved over time!
10/29/2007 (11:56 pm)
It's been interesting seeing this thread--stayed out because I wanted to see what the community's thoughts were.Personally, I agree with Jay pretty much--although I would call them "professional indies", whereas Roland's description is more of a regular "indie"...although for quite a while anyone at all, successful (released game) or not was called indie.
It's an interesting definition of a group that has certainly evolved over time!
#8
I started this thread because I don't like the idea that once a studio has done the work to build success for itself, it seems to become a Goliath, as Jay put it. As long as a studio remains creatively independent, shouldn't it still be part of the club? Indeed these successes should be looked up to, and learned from, shouldn't they?
10/30/2007 (2:35 am)
I agree with Jay and others as to the broad definition of Indie. I don't think any of the definitions exclude the large independents either. It's more the mentality of the Indie community that I'm trying to guage.I started this thread because I don't like the idea that once a studio has done the work to build success for itself, it seems to become a Goliath, as Jay put it. As long as a studio remains creatively independent, shouldn't it still be part of the club? Indeed these successes should be looked up to, and learned from, shouldn't they?
#9
The fun indies do it in their spare time.
Indie for me is somebody, who is not this much bound by somebody telling them what to do. Neither the publisher nor the marketing department. If you have more than say 5-10 full time people doing one game, you cross the threshold. There are monthly costs (office space, computers, etc), people want to be paid and the decision of what gets produced hinges on what sells well.
The big companies are not indies anymore, because they need to be as all encompassing as possible. They need to sell well. That is not to say indies cannot sell well. But they do not have to make every design decision market optimized. They also can prosper in niche markets (no need to be Walmart compatible), because normally indies try to keep cost down and then it is no drama if the game is not in the bestseller list, because it never meant to be there in the first place.
10/30/2007 (3:17 am)
I don't think it is just a marketing term. And I agree that there are professional indies and lets call them fun indies. The professional indies are small teams, self funded, who think of it as a business (including deadlines and expectations to finish a polished game). I see myself in here. The fun indies do it in their spare time.
Indie for me is somebody, who is not this much bound by somebody telling them what to do. Neither the publisher nor the marketing department. If you have more than say 5-10 full time people doing one game, you cross the threshold. There are monthly costs (office space, computers, etc), people want to be paid and the decision of what gets produced hinges on what sells well.
The big companies are not indies anymore, because they need to be as all encompassing as possible. They need to sell well. That is not to say indies cannot sell well. But they do not have to make every design decision market optimized. They also can prosper in niche markets (no need to be Walmart compatible), because normally indies try to keep cost down and then it is no drama if the game is not in the bestseller list, because it never meant to be there in the first place.
#10
So for me, that's Indie. Being free, developing without any restraints. How the games are financed or who is publishing them doesn't matter as long as the developer retains control over their IP and freedom.
10/30/2007 (4:41 am)
Indie developers like iD do what they want to do with their games. They can choose what to work on and when without being forced by 'financiers' (publishers.. whatever) to work on a specific projects like making sequel after sequel of their or a completely different IP, like the MotoGP team, they had to abandon the projects they were skilled at to work on something completely different after getting acquired.So for me, that's Indie. Being free, developing without any restraints. How the games are financed or who is publishing them doesn't matter as long as the developer retains control over their IP and freedom.
#11
Take2 or EA are also self publishing companies with internal developement. But they are not indies. Nobody tells EA to work sequel after sequel, but it makes money. Nobody tells iD to work on the Doom or Quake brand, but it makes sense to use peoples recognition of something familiar. Marketing sense. If iD wants to make a happy go lucky Nintendo style game, their marketing department will collectively go ballistic.
If you have 40-100 people working on one project, you can get it wrong maybe once or maybe twice and then you go bust or sell. And getting it wrong in a AAA title category means not making the top 10 list for long enough. And this may happens, if Walmart does not feature your game, because of the rating. So maybe iD has no publisher, but if their distribution tanks, freedom good bye. Thats why Valve tries to control this too, to be independent of Walmart and the likes. But you cannot make a break even in AAA titles by internet sales alone. And break even is not enough to finance your next adventure.
And one should not forget that the more people depend on a job at a company, the more families have their main income in a company, the less free the company gets. Looking at the faces of your employees and telling them sorry, you did it wrong must be hell.
10/30/2007 (6:30 am)
ID is not free to do whatever they want. They may not have somebody outside the company, but their marketing department has its big say. Their restraint is that if iD does not make money to pay the pretty large monthly bill, they go bust or have to sell their company. They must compromise to reach the largest possible market. It may be the market research department and not an external publisher, but they cannot just do what they want. Take2 or EA are also self publishing companies with internal developement. But they are not indies. Nobody tells EA to work sequel after sequel, but it makes money. Nobody tells iD to work on the Doom or Quake brand, but it makes sense to use peoples recognition of something familiar. Marketing sense. If iD wants to make a happy go lucky Nintendo style game, their marketing department will collectively go ballistic.
If you have 40-100 people working on one project, you can get it wrong maybe once or maybe twice and then you go bust or sell. And getting it wrong in a AAA title category means not making the top 10 list for long enough. And this may happens, if Walmart does not feature your game, because of the rating. So maybe iD has no publisher, but if their distribution tanks, freedom good bye. Thats why Valve tries to control this too, to be independent of Walmart and the likes. But you cannot make a break even in AAA titles by internet sales alone. And break even is not enough to finance your next adventure.
And one should not forget that the more people depend on a job at a company, the more families have their main income in a company, the less free the company gets. Looking at the faces of your employees and telling them sorry, you did it wrong must be hell.
#12
10/30/2007 (6:52 am)
I wonder if Activision has ever poked id with a stick and said "make us more money, you."
#13
I have a hard time believing that Adrian or John Carmack take direction on what to work on next. Do you have an article or quote to back up your assertion?
I see your point about the size of a company dictating a certain return on investment. But don't all companies want to make money? Would anyone make a game they thought would fail in the market? I believe a product can be new and fresh, and still be geared for the market.
It seems like you're saying that being big means you're not 'free' to make games that fail. Is that really a freedom that we as Indies want to champion?
10/30/2007 (7:06 am)
@Dragica,I have a hard time believing that Adrian or John Carmack take direction on what to work on next. Do you have an article or quote to back up your assertion?
I see your point about the size of a company dictating a certain return on investment. But don't all companies want to make money? Would anyone make a game they thought would fail in the market? I believe a product can be new and fresh, and still be geared for the market.
It seems like you're saying that being big means you're not 'free' to make games that fail. Is that really a freedom that we as Indies want to champion?
#14
A small developer does not need to be in the bestseller list, AAA titles must. To be in the bestseller list you have to make marketing happy, distribution happy and a lot of customers happy. Sure nobody tells Carmack what to do, until he fails to archive this goal. And then there are a lot of unemployed people and the freedom stops. And I am sure he nows that, nobody has to tell him that.
Maybe I should try to better define my understanding of an indie company. For me this is a company, which is independent of the need to make something that pleases the largest possible user base. A company which can make niche products, because it is independent financed and has low production costs, which means they do not need to sell a lot to gain profit. And a company, where there are not a lot of employees, who count on a monthly check. A company which can start with an idea and does not have to start with market research or an already successful game design template. Independence of idea if you will.
Because just defining it over the money is too ambiguous for me . We all need money and a lot of people or very few people are independently finance depending how you define it. Is maxing out your credit card and getting your moms retirement fond independent of external financing or not ?
10/30/2007 (7:46 am)
No I don't have any quote, but it is Doom3 and Quake4. And no company is free to make games that fail as business, but the difference is, what is failure.A small developer does not need to be in the bestseller list, AAA titles must. To be in the bestseller list you have to make marketing happy, distribution happy and a lot of customers happy. Sure nobody tells Carmack what to do, until he fails to archive this goal. And then there are a lot of unemployed people and the freedom stops. And I am sure he nows that, nobody has to tell him that.
Maybe I should try to better define my understanding of an indie company. For me this is a company, which is independent of the need to make something that pleases the largest possible user base. A company which can make niche products, because it is independent financed and has low production costs, which means they do not need to sell a lot to gain profit. And a company, where there are not a lot of employees, who count on a monthly check. A company which can start with an idea and does not have to start with market research or an already successful game design template. Independence of idea if you will.
Because just defining it over the money is too ambiguous for me . We all need money and a lot of people or very few people are independently finance depending how you define it. Is maxing out your credit card and getting your moms retirement fond independent of external financing or not ?
#15
Carmack
So yeah, long story short, they ditched the whole game after working on it for more than a year. Definitely feel like they aren't doing what they want..
Also, I agree with what Weston said.
10/30/2007 (7:49 am)
@DragicaQuote:ID is not free to do whatever they want.
Carmack
Quote:"After DOOM 3, we moved on internally to something we tentatively called, Darkness. It was going to be another dark, creepy survival horror game. It was going to be cool -- stuck on an island, doing some interesting things. But we eventually reached a point where we said, 'Do we really want to do another dark id game?'
So yeah, long story short, they ditched the whole game after working on it for more than a year. Definitely feel like they aren't doing what they want..
Also, I agree with what Weston said.
#16
That quote seems to reiterate that they do whatever they want. when he asks "Do WE really want to do another dark ID game?" it sounds like they're asking themselves. Where in that quote is the second controlling party?
Being able to ditch a project after a year of development also underscores their freedom, doesn't it?
Owners of a company always have the freedom to ignore market trends, or their own marketing department, or anyone. Of course there are more consequences involved in every decision when there is a staff involved, but does that mean the owners aren't making the decisions any more?
Additionally, in the realm of freedom; wouldn't a larger team have the freedom to make a larger variety of games than a small team? I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that larger successful teams actually have more freedom than a smaller team.
10/30/2007 (8:19 am)
@NikhilThat quote seems to reiterate that they do whatever they want. when he asks "Do WE really want to do another dark ID game?" it sounds like they're asking themselves. Where in that quote is the second controlling party?
Being able to ditch a project after a year of development also underscores their freedom, doesn't it?
Owners of a company always have the freedom to ignore market trends, or their own marketing department, or anyone. Of course there are more consequences involved in every decision when there is a staff involved, but does that mean the owners aren't making the decisions any more?
Additionally, in the realm of freedom; wouldn't a larger team have the freedom to make a larger variety of games than a small team? I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that larger successful teams actually have more freedom than a smaller team.
#17
10/30/2007 (9:36 am)
I don't know where the dividing line is between Indie and AAA, but my team has its design meetings at my dining room table. Not sure when we will be defined as AAA, but we are definately Indie now. :-)
#18
There is a difference between indie and privately owned, in my opinion, but like everyone else I have trouble defining it.
Or maybe I'll go with this definition: "you're indie if you aren't too proud to admit your code is a hack."
10/30/2007 (11:47 am)
I'm going with: "you know it when you see it."There is a difference between indie and privately owned, in my opinion, but like everyone else I have trouble defining it.
Or maybe I'll go with this definition: "you're indie if you aren't too proud to admit your code is a hack."
Torque Owner Deepeyed
but at the end of the day they are all just words and everyone will have a different perception of what indy means, (if indys even short for independent?)