Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Defining an Indie Game Developer 99

Posted by Soulskill from the bigger-than-a-breadbox dept.
NinjaBee Games writes "A continual debate rages about the nature of making independent games. 'What is Indie game development?' This argument endures throughout the year, but it's almost never heard louder than right after the announcement of finalists or winners of an Indie game development contest. The debate currently is in full swing after Microsoft's recent announcement that they will be changing the name of the Xbox Live Community Games section to Xbox Live Indie Games. In light of this important debate, Brent Fox of Indie developer NinjaBee has written a blog post in which he claims he has finally found the 'clear and undeniable' definition of Indie."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Defining an Indie Game Developer More

Defining an Indie Game Developer

Comments Filter:

  • Its like music (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FTWinston ( 1332785 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @06:06AM (#28359595) Homepage
    Indie music is music published independently. Indie games are games published independently. If an indie game is taken up by a big publisher, its no longer indie.

    • Re:Its like music (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Canazza ( 1428553 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @06:09AM (#28359623)

      Should an indepentendly produced and published game, released in January, that then gets picked up by a publisher in July, be exempt from any Indie awards for that year given in December?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        If an indie developer falls in the forest, and there's no one there to hear them, are they still indie?

      • Should an indepentendly produced and published game, released in January, that then gets picked up by a publisher in July, be exempt from any Indie awards for that year given in December?

        Depends on when it was submitted to the award panel?

      • I believe as long as the version of the game submitted for the Indie awards has not been altered since being picked up by a publisher, then yes.

    • You didn't define independently or big (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tepples ( 727027 ) <.tepples. .at. .gmail.com.> on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @06:13AM (#28359651) Homepage Journal

      Indie music is music published independently.

      Independently of what?

      If an indie game is taken up by a big publisher, its no longer indie.

      For one thing, define "publisher". If Valve accepts a given developer's game for Steam, does that make Valve the "publisher"? If Microsoft accepts a given developer's game for Xbox Live Commu^W Indie Games, does that make Microsoft the "publisher"? Now define "big".

      • Steam is a store-front. That's like saying Gamestation/Gamestop/Amazon/Play.com are Publishers

        • Re:You didn't define independently or big (Score:5, Insightful)

          by PyroMosh ( 287149 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @06:51AM (#28359851) Homepage

          I would argue that Steam is both. Just because Valve is a publisher that allows for direct purchases, doesn't make it not a publisher.

          Anyone can write an application, and put the compiled binary up on their website, and "self-publish". Steam gives exactly what a publisher does: direct access to a large distribution network. In this case, that comes in the form of a desktop client app that serves as a storefront. In the case of EA, it comes in the form of relationships with brick and mortars like Game Stop, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and others.

          Either way, I'd say it's still publishing.

          What's curious is that in the indie music world, "indie" just tends to mean independent of the "major" record labels (There are four, right? I'm not a big music person). It can still be published by a record company though. Epitaph Records has been cited as an example of that. But they publish for Bad Religion, NOFX Rancid, The Offspring, Pennywise, and other relatively well known artists. That doesn't seem to stop peoplr from claling them "indie".

          The problem is that there is no direct analogy to the "Big Four" in gaming. The biggest publishers would probably be the three console makers(Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony), then a few dozen or so companies like EA, Sega, Konomi, Activision, Capcom, etc.

          Oh, and throw a wrench into the works with Valve, and Steam competitors like Direct-To-Drive, etc.

          I think the answer is to have different levels for these indie game competitions.

          It could be by number of team members, or by dollar amount, or size of the publisher.

          As for scenarios like the one someone else posited where a game is developed by a small studio in January, picked up by a major publisher like EA in June, and entered into an Indie Game Festival in October, I think what's important is what the level of support was when the game was in development. If EA funded the game, no way. But if EA only got involved after the team had a finished product, why not?

          • Anyone can write an application, and put the compiled binary up on their website, and "self-publish".

            Not without a jailbreak, if your game's genre is one best displayed on the living room TV. As of 2009, video gaming on home theater PCs is still commercially insignificant, in part because most of indie game developers' potential customers aren't aware that PCs can be connected to TVs [sewelldirect.com].

            What's curious is that in the indie music world, "indie" just tends to mean independent of the "major" record labels (There are four, right? I'm not a big music person).

            Even the smaller record labels tend to be distributed by the big labels in North America.

            The problem is that there is no direct analogy to the "Big Four" in gaming.

            There's a Big Three of Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. Without their digital signature, your game is confined to the desk.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by selven ( 1556643 )
              A modern TV is just a big monitor. You can hook it up to a computer if you want.

              • A modern TV is just a big monitor.

                For one thing, non-modern TVs still outnumber modern TVs, and most of indie game developers' potential customers aren't aware that adapters to let a PC display on a non-modern TV exist. For another, a lot of people don't have a spare PC to put next to the TV.

          • Anyone can write an application, and put the compiled binary up on their website, and "self-publish". Steam gives exactly what a publisher does: direct access to a large distribution network. In this case, that comes in the form of a desktop client app that serves as a storefront.

            Sounds like a virtual store chain that accepts products not made by a big publisher to me, not a publisher. Like if you could walk into Borders with your book in hand, and they'd sell it for you. Do it electronically where they c

            • But Valve is also a publisher, right? To reverse the analogy, if EA opened up a physical store to sell their games, and they also sold games that they don't publish, that would be Steam. Here, it's clear that EA really isn't the publisher, as they probably have very little to do with the production of the content. But in the virtual it gets a bit more fuzzy. Valve basically is publishing your game for you, handling the distribution of it and the production of new copies.

              Part of the problem seems to be

              • But Valve is also a publisher, right?

                Valve is a publisher, Valve's Steam is a storefront. Valve publishes games and distributes them through Steam, Valve accepts games they didn't publish to distribute through Steam.

                Valve basically is publishing your game for you, handling the distribution of it and the production of new copies.

                Distribution is not publishing; publishers often use a separate distribution company to handle that part. And in the digital world, "production of new copies" is meaningless. Tha

          • The problem is that it gets tricky. According to this definition one could argue that internally developed games at EA are independent. The question becomes at what point does a developer become big enough to be considered the big developer them selves. There are all kinds of examples that are more questionable than this EA scenario. For example, Bizarre Creations made the game Geometry Wars with their own money, are they âoeIndieâ even though they are a huge developer that worked for MS on a bunc

      • Re:You didn't define independently or big (Score:5, Insightful)

        by FTWinston ( 1332785 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @06:40AM (#28359799) Homepage
        Independently of a 3rd-party publisher. A publisher being an entity that provides money up front in exchange for rights related to the game (sales money, IP ownership, etc).
        big. [lmgtfy.com]
        Big is probably irrelevant, I used this to distinguish between the dev's grandma giving them £10 for a pizza during one night of development and EA giving them £500'000 for the rights to the game. But its a needless distinction.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by crossmr ( 957846 )

          a publisher also publishers the game..pays for distribution, packages the game, ships it, etc.

        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          So if Microsoft releases a game and self-publishes it, it's indie? I think that doesn't fit into most people's definitions of indie (I would guess most people use "indie" as a synonym for "non-mainstream", which is practically impossible to formally define)

        • Re:You didn't define independently or big (Score:4, Insightful)

          by sammyF70 ( 1154563 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @08:01AM (#28360393) Homepage Journal
          Someone please mod parent up.

          If you're develop a game (or, for that matter, create a music track/make a movie) without being paid up-front by a 3rd party for the rights to publish the final product, you're independent. As soon as you get money for the rights to publish the final product before it is even in a releasable state, you're not independent anymore, as this kind of money generally comes with its own set of limitations and set by the publisher. You are now owing a finished product for the delivered money, and it generally should conform to conditions set by the publisher ("look ... you can't show boobs! And could you please add some gore when you use a grenade?")

          I would rant longer, but power outage, and my UPS is going to die soon.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Endo13 ( 1000782 )

            Yeah, taken completely literally that is exactly what "indie" would be. However as it is generally used, I think that would only be part of it. The other part is the size of the developing company. So here is what I'd say is probably the simplest way to define "indie" as it is generally used:

            1. The developer does the work on his own dime.

            2. The developer is small enough that they only work on one or two games at a time.

            • But some very big studios only work on one or two games at a time.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Endo13 ( 1000782 )

                Those are the games that we know of. Just because we haven't heard about it doesn't mean it ain't happening. Take Blizzard for example. We know that they're working on SC2 and Diablo 3 right now. But they've also been working on an original-IP MMO that we just found out about in the last few weeks. Do you really think they hadn't been working on that for quite a while before they gave us this tiny bit of info? I'd put money on it that they've got at least another half a dozen more projects that we know noth

                • Ok, counter-example. NetDevil a small studio, and are only working on Jumpgate Evolution afaik. Even if they have another secret project, thats "1 or 2" ... and they're not indie.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by Endo13 ( 1000782 )

                    They're also working on Lego Universe. (They also list three other "current projects" on their site, but it seems that info may be outdated, as they still list Auto Assault which IIRC has already gone belly-up.)

                    http://www.netdevil.com/games/lego.php [netdevil.com]

                    However, as I know next to nothing about the company besides what I found in a quick 5-minute perusal of their site, could you tell me why exactly that they're not "indie"?

            • 1. The developer does the work on his own dime.

              I don't know - I've always defined 'indie' for myself as being 'hobbyist with dreams of commercial success'. That's why Braid annoyed me so much - sure, the guy did it himself with the help of a hired artist, but if you re-mortgage your house and take a year off to build your dream game, you can't put yourself in the same box as someone who has to work full time to feed their family and develops games in the hour or two a night after his wife has finally stopped interrupting him and gone to sleep.

          • As soon as you get money for the rights to publish the final product before it is even in a releasable state...

            ...you're 3D Realms.

      • Independently of what?

        Independently of having development funded by a big-house.

        If you record a song at home, release it on your blog and sony starts sell it(or you take it to stores to publish)

        You still funded it, on a much smaller scale than say Britney, who is churning out mass-produced songs that her agent tells her to

        If you write a game from scratch(Plants vs zombies) then it deserves to be judged by different rules than if it is "Sims 3: Pets Yet Again"
        Even if EA publishes it later, you still made it on an indie

    • Yes. That guys breakdown had some things in It that think some people would find objectionable.

      Use of commercial software or big commercial game engines
      Why can't Indie game maker use such a stuff. So lets say it cost $2,000 to license the software. That is about as much as a good computer. So he has a crappy computer and uses software that makes programming a bit easier (as he is just an Indie developer and doesn't have the money for programming staff (The last time I checked $2k fixed cost or ev

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Chabo ( 880571 )

        He was listing a bunch of reasons that people use to say that a game "isn't indie enough". Deciding whether those reasons are any good is left as an exercise for the reader.

      • I didn"t say I agreed with all of the items on my list. I just said that I have heard other developers use these things as a means of disqualifying other developers from being "Indie". My point was that I think they create this definition based on what they are or what they hope to be soon. They then want to exclude any comparisons that they think might be unfair. Not that I agree but I can give you some of the arguments that I"ve heard on these topics that may make them a "little" more understandable but,

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Mr_eX9 ( 800448 )

      Except that in the music world, "Indie" is the "Alt" of the 2000s--it's a term so overused that it's well beyond useless.

      Because of multi-platform games and digital distribution, the relationship between a game developer and their publisher is very different than the relationship between a signed band and their record label. I don't think the availability of games like Braid, Blueberry Garden, or The Dishwasher on mainstream platforms makes them (or their developers) not "indie."

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by gowen ( 141411 )

      Independently from whom?
      What qualifies someone as a "big" publisher?

      Rephrasing a question is not the same as answering it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ravyne ( 858869 )
      I'd disagree. Something is indie if its *produced* independently, without external aid (such as advancements from a publisher, for instance) -- Whether it's later picked up by a publisher, big or small, has nothing to do with it unless they start demanding changes before its release. What "Indie" is supposed to mean is a product that is free of all the publisher/market-research/men-in-suits bullshit.

  • why xbox XNA development fails (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    OK Microsoft engineers put a LOT of very good effort into the XNA game development platform. And its a total failure. Let me explain why:

    To buy a game from a indie developer is more difficult to find and choose then any xbox live arcade games, the xbox is not a simple devie designed for casual gaming, its a gaming machine. NOTHING drives them to look at the xbox XNA developers.

    So theres no advertisements for you, no "hey here is the best", nada. If marketing was on the level of engineering then the XN

    • [...] I would have simply bought a new Xbox360.[...]

      "you don't come here to hunt, do you?"

    • OK Microsoft engineers put a LOT of very good effort into the XNA game development platform. And its a total failure. Let me explain why:

      You can't call something a failure because your console RRoD's and you got shitty support. That has nothing to do with XNA. If you said XNA is a total failure because no one is playing the games, or no one is developing games with XNA (and then maybe provided some links), then I would believe. You just seem bitter that you went through some B.S. with your 360.

      I've been trolling the XNA forums for a few years. There are hundreds of developers, and there is a thread where developers post how much money th

  • Seems to me that to really be "fair" based on the rough criteria outlined in the article, you'd almost need a kind of weight system like in boxing.

  • Independent, not "indie" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @07:01AM (#28359917) Homepage
    If you're an independent game producer, then call yourself that. Calling yourself an "indie" has little actual meaning and tons of cultural meaning. It's a word like "hyper" or "nexus" that, in some people's [small] minds, makes words next to it look better. It's like how menus in China always have English on them: it's not for native speakers to read, it's so the locals will look at the English and say, "ah, English - this restaurant is international and therefore better." The quality of the product is irrelevant.

    And now, you're upset because a big corp came in and sat on your made-up word. Ha-ha! What, they changed its meaning? It didn't have any meaning in the first place, other than to make words next to it look better to easily-impressed insular twits. That's what the brouhaha is all about here - not that MS is going to have a new game channel, but "they stole my cool saying! All the other hipsters at Starbucks won't think I'm cool any more!"

    • Re:Independent, not "indie" (Score:4, Funny)

      by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @08:02AM (#28360409) Homepage

      And now, you're upset because a big corp came in and sat on your made-up word. Ha-ha! What, they changed its meaning? It didn't have any meaning in the first place, other than to make words next to it look better to easily-impressed insular twits.

      They're called "instwits", and I was one back when it meant something. You kids today don't know anything about self-congratulatory myopia, you think you can just blindly state that yours is the only pure form of artistic expression unsullied by corporate soul-sucking and that makes you a real instwit. Please. I was bouncing the idea of how unique and on the pulse of the times I was around an echo-chamber of like-minded pretentious blowhards while you were still battling with Suzie Stinkypants over who got the "special" blue carpet square to sit on for story time. But it wasn't special, you only thought that because a cadre of corpdroids* at the carpet factory calculated it to be "daring" and "edgy" while also not violating your burgeoning sense of conformity. That and all the others were either red or yellowish-beige.

      * Now there's a word that used to mean something, too. Nowadays anyone thinks they can show a little slavish devotion to a soulless entity at the expense of their integrity and respect for their fellow man and it makes them a corpdroid. Why in my day...

  • Indie Developer Definition (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @07:06AM (#28359947)

    An indie developer is the guy that says "Hey, I can code. I like video games. I should make my own video game! I have no visual or musical artistic sense, but that's just filler toward the end of the project!"

    500 hours of coding later, the indie developer comes to realize that their game will fail miserably due to the fact that they underestimated how hard it would be to come across free graphic, music, and sound effect assets that reflect what the game is supposed to be.

    That same indie developer then spends another handful of hours learning Blender to realize that the best they can come up with artistically is a sphere that's had its centre punched in that they euphemistically call a "bean bag chair" and try to completely retool their gameplay around that. Grand Theft Auto 5 becomes Beanbag Jumping World.

    1,000 hours, many Blender exports, recording sessions in the bathroom bashing a plank of wood with a hammer to re-create the sound of wood cracking without buying some $100+ sound library and a crappy public domain tune later, they release their game on their webpage and over the next five years, approximately 3 people not related to the author check it out.

    • Having been through most of that cycle myself, you really nailed it. I've been sticking to 2D game development recently, which is a bit more manageable. Once you realize the difficulty involved, the fun is sapped out of it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
      I really wish there were a concise video on Youtube that would dramatize just that scenario. I could send every teenager to it who has ever told me "I'm thinking about making videogames" when asked about his career aspirations (with him assuming that making them will be as fun and easy as playing them, of course). I would also like similar videos for "rap star," "sports star," "actress," and "model."

  • I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Team Shanghai Alice yet in comments.

    A one man development studio? Can't get much more independent than that.

  • Nor is it even comp.sci. The definition is really simple:

    If your paying job is NOT game development, then you ARE an indie if you do game development on the side.

    If your day job IS developing games, then you're NOT an indie (you are a professional!)

    Who publishers your game doesn't change your status of how you got the game made.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Chabo ( 880571 )

      I disagree. "Day job" vs "on the side" is professional vs amateur, not whether you're indie.

      Indie just means you're independent; take that as you will, but to me it means that you answer to yourself. Both amateur and professional developers can be independent, depending on how much control they have over their own project(s).

      • Yeah this morning I was thinking what distinguishes between indie and non, and amateur and professional.

        Before I would of argued, Amateur = Indie, Professional=Non-Indie, but you have a certain point. I'd say that yours is a little better of a definition, but it is still a little loose.

        The reason I say its not exactly correct either is because with your definition most professional game developers are NOT indie either! UNLESS they self-publish as Most publishers will tell you what you need to change. So i

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Chabo ( 880571 )

          with your definition most professional game developers are NOT indie either!

          Well, I think that's kinda true... as someone above said, if you're paid for your work before you have a finished product, then whoever paid for the product likely has a decent amount of control over it.

          I agree it's not a perfect definition, as I'm sure there will be a counterexample somewhere. Think of Valve though; despite their success and relatively large size (for a "small" game company), they are a fully independent game company. Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington founded the company with their own money

    • I will need to add this professional and armature reasoning to my list. So, to confirm my theory, do you have anther job and make games on the side and do you feel that itâ(TM)s unfair for the guys who get to spend all of their time making games to be directly compared to your games? It sounds like you may hope that you game gets published by a big publisher but you donâ(TM)t think that should change your âoeindieâ status. Is this correct?

  • Come not near to me, for I be indier than thou...

    Why is that important? For the air of being not one of the "big studio" products, so it's morally (more) wrong not to pay for my game? To be excused for creating mediocre games because, well, I'm just indie, I can't produce tripel-A games (which is a lie, btw, a lot of 'indie' titles offer way more enjoyment than any big studio touted triple-A titles)?

    Seriously, what's the big fuss?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by tepples ( 727027 )

      Seriously, what's the big fuss?

      It has to do with the console makers' qualifications for developers. Nintendo, for one, states on its web page [warioworld.com] that it requires developers to have a leased office and previous published titles on some other platform. This means a smaller studio might not be able to port even a finished PC game to a Sony or Nintendo console or a Sony or Nintendo handheld. So I'd almost venture to define "indie" as "not qualifying for a PS2, Wii, PSP, or DS SDK".

      • What? I may not own my office?

        Sounds like a deal only for minor studios that can't afford real estate...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tepples ( 727027 )

          What? I may not own my office?

          The actual rule is that your office and your home must be on separate lots. But it can be even more expensive to own an office building than to lease one, especially for a smaller studio.

  • Why do you always call him "junior"? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tetsujin ( 103070 ) on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @11:32AM (#28362801) Homepage Journal

    Pah! Everybody knows that Indy was the dog's name!

  • An indie game developer can be defined in a sense as "broke". It is very hard to make money with indie games but is it also very rewarding to be able to make games as you would like to be able to play them, no content is overlooked or disregarded due to deadlines. So often, games developed independently [oxyhost.com] will show a great deal more depth and cerebral captivation than those developed in a big team corporate environment. However of course there are many exceptions on both sides. I still love to play Capitalism

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close