On Independent Games And Cutting Out The Middleman

Thanks to DIYGames for their two-part series discussing the problems independent game developers have with distribution channels, and possible ways to stop these distributors taking all the profits. The articles explain the positives of online sales: "Building customer awareness for a game took time and energy... [but] with the advent of the distribution channels like RealOne Arcade, Shockwave, and the others, indies now have access all the customers of the distribution channel virtually overnight", alongside the negative fiscal aspects: "In most cases the indie must agree to give up 60-70% of their game's profits for the privilege of having instant access to the distribution channel's customers." The piece ends by discussing alternatives, pointing out that "A [thriving game-related] community is as viral a selling tool as any, and it helps preserve the life of the game in the marketplace."

Great model

[Goldberg's Pants]

The game "Out of the Park Baseball" was marketed briefly through Infogrames I think it was under the name "Season Ticket Baseball", but that deal finished with version 5. OOTP is a HUGE baseball game with a legion of fans, myself included.

The irony is, an independent developer distributing like this easily makes more money per copy than with a name publisher, and probably suffers less copying. OOTP for example is protected by Elicence which, last time I checked, has yet to be cracked.

More and more games are being released this way. It's very much like the indie film business. The most creativity and originality is with these indie development groups, while the mainstream publishers will only push generic "been there, done that" games.

In ten years, I fully expect the independent developers to rank up next to the independent filmmakers for kudos and cutting edge material.

The real problem is the stereotype

[superpulpsicle]

This is a fact, when people think indie games they have a certain image of the game being real shabby. These are some things people told me when I was younger trying to pull some indie product together. Damn disencouraging...

1.) The game will have no real customer support

2.) The indie programmers couldn't have tested it on all these hardware

3.) Indie games are probably too short

4.) If it's so good, why isn't it in stores

5.) By the time you're done the technology has changed

Re:my experience

[blueZhift]

This also sounds like a good way for independent developers to survive and make money against the likes of EA and other behemoths of the industry.

I'd like to think that independent developers will be the source of new gameplay ideas and genres in the future. The ability to easily set up shop on the internet means that the coolest new games won't necessarily be bought at Best Buy.

Live For Speed

[dchamp]

One example of an indie game that's turning out to be a very good product is "Live For Speed" [liveforspeed.net]. They're keeping it as an independent product, and seem to be doing OK. I don't know what their sales figures are, but based on the # of online players, it can't be too bad.

I find it amusing when people make a big fuss about not being able to go indie - when others just do it [righteousbabe.com].

p.s. Anyone remember Doom?

BitTorrent?

[bishiraver]

Let people download software for free after paying for a serial number to register it with. If the game involves online play, only allow a certain number of serial numbers acive simultaniusly - like neverwinter nights or diablo. Use file-swarming, like BitTorrent, to keep costs of serving the large files down. You could even incorporate file-swarming into the application - if it has online play - so that users with broadband connections act as low (1-2kbytes/sec) seeds. Most of this, of course, depends on the game being partially or completely multiplayer. But what kind of game is it now-a-days, if it isn't multiplayer?