Tales of the Rampant Coyote
Ye Olde Archives. Visit the new blog at http://www.rampantgames.com/blog/ - and use the following feed: http://rampantgames.com/blog/wp-rss2.php
Ye Olde Archives. Visit the new blog at http://www.rampantgames.com/blog/ - and use the following feed: http://rampantgames.com/blog/wp-rss2.php
Sunday, July 30, 2006
What is an indie game?
"What is an independent game?" This question gets asked a lot, but I've yet to see an answer that clearly defines an independent game. You'd think that as a maker and seller of indie games, I'd be able to whip out a definition really easily. But it's not so easy after all.
Borrowing From The Movies
A few months ago, curious about the "independents" of other industries, I looked up the definition of independent film. I saw this definition on wikipedia:
"An independent film (or indie film) is a film initially produced without financing or distribution from a major movie studio. "
I like this because it sounds fairly cut-and dried. I like to apply a similar definition to indie games:
"An independent game (indie game) is a game initially produced without financing or distribution from a major game publisher."
Sounds nice and simple, right? But it raises a lot of questions, too.
Define "Major". Or "Distribution."
After all, what constitutes a "major" game publisher? Sure, if it's Nintendo, Electronic Arts, Sony, or Microsoft, we can safely call them major. If it's someone like Rampant Games, well, it's clearly NOT in the major leagues. But what about all the guys in-between?
And distribution... does this mean that if your game gets out on a console, that it shouldn't be considered indie? Because the console manufacturers are certainly all major players in the industry, and they control the distribution. I can't agree with a definition that would exclude all the XBox LiveArcade titles, or Behemoth's Alien Hominid.
What About Budget?
There is also an argument (espoused by Russell Carroll, the editor-in-chief of GameTunnel.com, "the" indie game review site) that budgetary restrictions should be incorporated into the definition of indie-hood. This came to a head in 2004, when the game "Savage" walked away with not only multiple awards from the Independent Gaming Festival (IGF), but was also the talk of IGF. Russell referred to this as a "very dark day for the future of Indie gaming." Savage was not financially backed by any major game publisher, but the developers still had a rumored 1.5 million dollars in external investment and funding. That wasn't far from the the average budget of a major retail game at the time. Was this uneven playing field fair to the "real" garage-building, self-funded independent games projects that year?
It's All About Control.
Dan MacDonald suggests another defining characteristic of independent games, that they be free of an external "controlling interest" during development. While Dan's arguments are a little more exclusionary than I'd agree with, I think this characteristic strikes pretty close to the mark.
There's a difference between influence and control. Sure, game development is going to be influenced by all kinds of external forces - the market, the investors, the prospective publishers. But to me, the deciding factor is in whoever has the final say and the right to take their ball and go home.
In traditional "mainstream" game development, that almost always goes to the publisher. They tend to demand most or all the rights to a title as part of their contract. They can cancel the game, and it will be DEAD. They might also decide to shop the game around to another developer. That's pretty much as non-indie as you can get.
In contrast, the essence of indie games is this: With indie games, it is the game / designer / developer that is IN CONTROL. All that other middleman crap that the industry seems to be about today become COMMODITIZED to serve the game, rather than the other way around.
The publishers, the investors / financers, the contractors, the marketing departments... From an indie perspective, those guys can either help or get out of the way.
So - here goes my final (for the next hour at least) distinction between an INDIE and NON-INDIE game:
If a game couldn't have been made or distributed without required APPROVAL (even if only a formality) from another party, then it's not an indie game. This includes approval from publishers, a board of directors, a committee, one's mother, whatever.
That's a fuzzy declaration, but it'll have to do, and that's pretty much what being an indie is all about. To me.
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 11:57 PM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I think that when Alien Hominid was initially produced they didn't have any console distribution deal in place (I could be wrong). Independent creations can still get big company distribution later, but the crux is that they get made without any guarantee of getting it. So I think that using the analog to independent movies is a likely route for independent games to go.
Then again, I could also say that the definition of an 'indie game' isn't necessarily the same as for an 'independent game'. Your latter points speak to the differences between them.
Then again, I could also say that the definition of an 'indie game' isn't necessarily the same as for an 'independent game'. Your latter points speak to the differences between them.
I've been more than happy with "Indie Game = Self Funded". That could mean you earned money by doing licensed titles first, and then made your game with your profits. Or you developed it from nothing more than pocket change.
Investment or winning the lottery is certainly a grey area. After all, depending on your agreement with your investor, it can be like wining the lottery. Else, it's just a source of income without a publisher's producer nagging insignificant details at you (if you were unlucky enough to get one of those types). But I think it all comes down to who benefits from the developers profits. If it's 100% the developer, then they're indie. But then again, I can nullify my whole argument with developers taking out bank loans. Hmm...
Thus, my answer is indie games don't exist. The End.
Investment or winning the lottery is certainly a grey area. After all, depending on your agreement with your investor, it can be like wining the lottery. Else, it's just a source of income without a publisher's producer nagging insignificant details at you (if you were unlucky enough to get one of those types). But I think it all comes down to who benefits from the developers profits. If it's 100% the developer, then they're indie. But then again, I can nullify my whole argument with developers taking out bank loans. Hmm...
Thus, my answer is indie games don't exist. The End.
Dustin-
While "indie" is supposed to be just a contraction of "independent," I think you do have a point. When someone talks about the "indie" game development community (or "indie" comics, or so forth), they are talking about something a little bit different. Attitude / philosophy / lifestyle / whatever. Maybe I should separate the two. But it just *feels* like forcing a division where none really should exist.
It used to be that most mainstream developers, when they heard about independent games, perceived them as being wannabes ... poor guys who were still trying to break into the industry and looking for a job. I think that has largely changed now, but it could only be because I've swapped sides.
And you are right - from what I remember of the postmortem, the Alien Homenid guys funded their own game, and the distribution deal didn't come into being until later. Based on my understanding of how they went about creating Alien Homenid, those guys are indie all the way. I can't buy any kind of definition of indie that would exclude them.
While "indie" is supposed to be just a contraction of "independent," I think you do have a point. When someone talks about the "indie" game development community (or "indie" comics, or so forth), they are talking about something a little bit different. Attitude / philosophy / lifestyle / whatever. Maybe I should separate the two. But it just *feels* like forcing a division where none really should exist.
It used to be that most mainstream developers, when they heard about independent games, perceived them as being wannabes ... poor guys who were still trying to break into the industry and looking for a job. I think that has largely changed now, but it could only be because I've swapped sides.
And you are right - from what I remember of the postmortem, the Alien Homenid guys funded their own game, and the distribution deal didn't come into being until later. Based on my understanding of how they went about creating Alien Homenid, those guys are indie all the way. I can't buy any kind of definition of indie that would exclude them.
Mike,
Yeah, self-funded is a pretty good indicator. If you aren't a major studio / publisher, and you self-fund the development of your game, then you are an indie. But I wouldn't want to limit it to that.
I've seen too many games that weren't fully self-funded. Bank loans, creative financing strategies, investment from friends, neighbors, and local businesses... you name it. I mean, if your team is working voluntarily on the project, that IS a form of investment, right?
I think it's inescapable. Almost everyone's gonna have some kinda dependence, as you suggest :)
Minions of Mirth is a *very* indie game - I hold up Josh Ritter as something of an archetypical indie. He and his wife moved out to the middle of nowhere to slash their living expenses to the bone in order for them to make a go of it as indie game developers. Yet he still received some amount of outside investment, IIRC, to complete Minions of Mirth. The game was already well into development at that time, but Josh needed some capital to pay for content development (ya gotta have tons of monsters, after all!)
I don't think he surrendered creative control to get that influx of money to finish the game. But I don't know. I don't think Josh has ever explained the terms of his agreement with his investor, nor should he.
But again, applying the definition borrowed from independent movies, he's in the clear. Who's to say that his investor isn't a dreamer and "indie" himself who was equally thrilled just to see this game see the light of day?
Yeah, self-funded is a pretty good indicator. If you aren't a major studio / publisher, and you self-fund the development of your game, then you are an indie. But I wouldn't want to limit it to that.
I've seen too many games that weren't fully self-funded. Bank loans, creative financing strategies, investment from friends, neighbors, and local businesses... you name it. I mean, if your team is working voluntarily on the project, that IS a form of investment, right?
I think it's inescapable. Almost everyone's gonna have some kinda dependence, as you suggest :)
Minions of Mirth is a *very* indie game - I hold up Josh Ritter as something of an archetypical indie. He and his wife moved out to the middle of nowhere to slash their living expenses to the bone in order for them to make a go of it as indie game developers. Yet he still received some amount of outside investment, IIRC, to complete Minions of Mirth. The game was already well into development at that time, but Josh needed some capital to pay for content development (ya gotta have tons of monsters, after all!)
I don't think he surrendered creative control to get that influx of money to finish the game. But I don't know. I don't think Josh has ever explained the terms of his agreement with his investor, nor should he.
But again, applying the definition borrowed from independent movies, he's in the clear. Who's to say that his investor isn't a dreamer and "indie" himself who was equally thrilled just to see this game see the light of day?
Yeah you're right, that example is certainly in the grey. The simple answer is to label him as not Indie because we're jealous of the fact that he was actually able to get money from someone who didn't require any level of control.
So Dan's "Control" description is probably the only one that covers all the bases and will make everyone happy. But by that, Indie is merely a label for those who were able to maintain creative control on a project, which includes many larger shops, Valve for example, or even Bungie (if you ignore the fact that they're owned by Microsoft). This angle doesn't bother me, but it takes away the significance that most people that use Indie to identify have.
In the end, claiming indieness is a silly practice, and even sillier to define. Bottom line, we make games, and anyone can throw the Indie banner up there to look cool. Indie is the game developer equivalent of meaningless resume phrases like "I work good with people", or "My greatest flaw is I'm a perfectionist".
So Dan's "Control" description is probably the only one that covers all the bases and will make everyone happy. But by that, Indie is merely a label for those who were able to maintain creative control on a project, which includes many larger shops, Valve for example, or even Bungie (if you ignore the fact that they're owned by Microsoft). This angle doesn't bother me, but it takes away the significance that most people that use Indie to identify have.
In the end, claiming indieness is a silly practice, and even sillier to define. Bottom line, we make games, and anyone can throw the Indie banner up there to look cool. Indie is the game developer equivalent of meaningless resume phrases like "I work good with people", or "My greatest flaw is I'm a perfectionist".
One of the N guys put up a pretty decent delineation between big and little I indie over at tigsource:
http://www.tigsource.com/articles/2006/07/31/metanets-next-game#comments
http://www.tigsource.com/articles/2006/07/31/metanets-next-game#comments
That's a great point. With my personal projects, if I didn't feel a game was up to snuff, I'd put it out there as freeware instead of shareware. But who's to say what the branding will evolve in to in the next few years, or how it will be bastardized.
If it's a marketable edge, then that's great. If it becomes a synonym for junk, then toss it. But bottom line, if your game can't hold it's own without brandings and classifications, then you've got a crappy product.
If it's a marketable edge, then that's great. If it becomes a synonym for junk, then toss it. But bottom line, if your game can't hold it's own without brandings and classifications, then you've got a crappy product.
Heh - Mike, jer, you guys may have inspired a whole new blog post outta me, thank you! I'm just kinda letting the ideas percolate a bit first.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
<< Home
