| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Namirrha
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 218
Location: Utah County, Utah. |
| Independent Game Development (Indie Games) |
|
What's your take on the "Indie game" scene? Do you think that it will become a viable market, to sell games for download, mail-order, etc? I got thinking about this after playing a bit of Spiderweb Software's Geneforge demo, and also the RPGDOT interview of the Chronicles of Ny, which is using the Torque game engine, available from Garage Games (an Indie community and development site), and is available for very cheap ($100 US dollars, IIRC). Will we finally see the rise of small game studios of 5-10 people supplying us with highly original and polished games, who aren't with the big publishers?
_________________
Give me the shadows, shield me from the light, and I shall let nothing pass in the darkness of the night. |
Sat Apr 10, 2004 8:30 pm |
|
|
MageofFire
Griller of Molerats
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 1594
Location: Monastery of Innos |
From what I've heard (I've never played it), Geneforge 2 was a great game. You just have to be able to look beyond the (very) dated graphics. It's great that there are indie developers and publishers out there that concentrate on making quality games rather than crappy games with great graphics.
_________________
OMG! WTF?! MONKEYS!!!!
=Member of numerous usergroups=
=Active in none of them=
Mediocreties, I absolve you! |
|
Sat Apr 10, 2004 10:07 pm |
|
|
cfmdobbie
High Emperor
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 1859
Location: London, England |
Indie games have been around for a long time, and they will be around for a good while yet. It has always been a viable market, if you're willing to put in the required effort. 
There is the temptation to look at today's AAA titles with their million dollar budgets, 50-member teams and 4 year timelines, and decide that no indie team can compete with them. But here's the trick: indie development isn't about competing with the big boys at all, at least not in that way. A fun game doesn't need celebrity voice actors, epic cinematics, photorealism, or a recognisable license - it just needs to be fun.
I worry about the state of the commercial game world. The shelves of Game are filled with uninspired, derivative works that vary little either from their competitors or from previous versions - no new genres have been created for years. The entire industry has stopped innovating! Part of the reason for this stagnation is that commercial games companies can get away with it - half the target market wasn't alive when the first version came out! Quake 4 is due out this year. Is it going to be that much better than Quake 3? How about UT2K3 versus UT2K4? Anything really revolutionary, or just higher detailed models and better explosions?
No, when there's a lot of money on the line, it just doesn't pay to be creative. People will pay money for last year's game, as long as it's got a slightly different title and slightly better graphics. Madden NFL '92, Madden NFL '93, Madden NFL '94, Madden NFL '95, Madden NFL '96, Madden NFL '97, Madden NFL '98, Madden NFL '99, Madden NFL 2000, Madden NFL 2001, Madden NFL 2002, Madden NFL 2003, Madden NFL 2004. I bet they release a Madden NFL 2005 next year...
Creativity has always been on the side of the indies. There are some amazing games out there - amazing twists on established ideas or even completely new experiences - that you'll just never see if you just buy retail boxes off a shelf. Long live indie game development! 
_________________
Charlie Dobbie
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Moderator of the Morrowind/Oblivion Forums= |
|
Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:03 am |
|
|
MageofFire
Griller of Molerats
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 1594
Location: Monastery of Innos |
Would it be possible for indie devs to license old game engines, such as say, the engine that powered Fallout? It would be cool to make a game with an old-skool engine. 
_________________
OMG! WTF?! MONKEYS!!!!
=Member of numerous usergroups=
=Active in none of them=
Mediocreties, I absolve you! |
|
Sun Apr 11, 2004 1:25 am |
|
|
cfmdobbie
High Emperor
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 1859
Location: London, England |
Totally depends - some companies make their work available once the game is no longer generating much revenue. If you want to work with the GPL you can play with the Quake 1 or Quake 2 codebases for free, or indeed you could develop a total conversion under any license you like.
On the other hand, there are a lot of free or cheap game engines, physics engines etc available these days. Technology is not really a limiting factor in indie development.
_________________
Charlie Dobbie
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Moderator of the Morrowind/Oblivion Forums= |
|
Sun Apr 11, 2004 2:29 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
The Follout soucre code was released to the public. Lots of mods being made for it, check NMA.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Apr 11, 2004 2:45 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
What I don't understand is the tendency of small dev houses to try and break in on the big budget game scene. Why not cater to the niche markets?
Why try to go fancy graphics? Why try and mimic Diablo? The big devs are all ready doing that. The gaming industry most closly reflects the movie industry in my opinion in that underselling doesn't work. A new Diablo clone comes out almost every month or two, why would I spend my money on a small unknown title this month when I can pickup Savage? Next month there will be Beyond Divinity.
Small time directors know not to try to copy big budget action titles. The have to creativly use small budgets to make an impact. I see all theses new RPG titles from small devs and they all follow the popular trnds in the industry: real time combat, fast paced action play, etc. Why not cater to the deprived turn-based crowd? That will make sure your title is not overlooked in the plethora of similar games released or on the shelves. And turn-based fans don't really care as much about graphics since we are forced to play old games all the time (to get our turn-based fix) It just seems like smart business to me.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Apr 11, 2004 3:00 am |
|
|
MageofFire
Griller of Molerats
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 1594
Location: Monastery of Innos |
@Roqua- I may misunderstand you, but you seem like you think I was saying we should mimic Fallout. I'm not saying that, I'm just saying we use it's engine. Though I couldn't agree more with your argument there. 
_________________
OMG! WTF?! MONKEYS!!!!
=Member of numerous usergroups=
=Active in none of them=
Mediocreties, I absolve you! |
|
Sun Apr 11, 2004 3:08 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I know, I just said that the source code was available for the mod community. I have read that it is pretty hard to work with though. I do not know if an Indie publisher could create and sell a game with it for profit. But then again, the JA3 comminity did that with wildfire.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Apr 11, 2004 6:19 am |
|
|
Namirrha
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 218
Location: Utah County, Utah. |
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
What I don't understand is the tendency of small dev houses to try and break in on the big budget game scene. Why not cater to the niche markets?
Part of the problem I think is catering to too small a niche to support even a small company. There must not only be sufficient demand, but potential for sufficient profit for the developers to invest their time. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if that niche market was willing to pay a higher price for their games, but that's not likely. Most games have reached a cap of $50 dollars; and many Indie games sell for about $20-30 US dollars, so they cannot compensate to a great degree. Many forces act against Indie game developers: poorly developed distribution channels (but these are becoming better), lack of marketing to inform potential buyers (seems to be spread by word of mouth), greater burden of work per person in the team, lower pay (and one wonders where the investment money will come from), lack of equipment, software, and perhaps knowledge or expertise to complete certain tasks, and lack of access to many other things. But I believe smaller teams also have many strengths to counter these hardships, such as greater flexibility and better communication. Possibly more productive per person as well.
Just doing a rough numbers analysis, let's say we have a hypothetical 5 member team: 2 programmers, 1 designer/writer, and 2 artists. The programmers expect to be paid about $40,000 each, designer and artists perhaps $30,000 each (and this is really paying them badly, without benefits or anything). Each year, salaries are expected to be $170,000, and let us say with other expected costs (equipment, software, rent, bills, etc.) that total costs run about $200,000 per year. If it takes them 2 years to develop decent 3D games, we are looking at about $400,000 per game, which is still 1/5 the cost of a poorly funded commercial RPG ($2 million dollar estimate, but more likely up to $5 million now). At $400,000 per game, to break even, they must sell 20,000 copies. According to one of my friends in the industry, most games require about 200,000-250,000 copies sold to break even. They require about 500,000+ copies sold to be considered successful. Unfortunately, most games don't even sell close to 50,000 copies. And these are games that line the shelves of countless retail stores, including big retailers like Wal-Mart. It makes one wonder how hard it will be to reach that "magic number" of games sold, whether downloaded or sent by mail, to break even for those 5 people. Remember that 10 people would require over double the number of games sold to keep them paid and employed. With a lack of clear and accessible distribution channels, reaching 20,000-40,000+ interested customers may be very difficult through the internet. But I believe there are ways to get past this if one is inventive enough.
quote:
Why try to go fancy graphics?
I don't look down on Diablo as much as some other people. In many ways, I think it has helped expose more game players to RPG-like games and led some of them to RPG games than would've happened on its own. Don't forget we saw a renaissance of RPGs not long after Diablo and Fallout came out.
More importantly, I want to address your question of fancy graphics. I don't think many RPG players necessarily want "fancy graphics" so much as they want functional and appropriate graphics. I'm a big fan of Fallout 1 and 2, but having played through the games so many times, and seen the engine so much, I am less inclined to play it. This follows the maxim that familiarity breeds contempt. It's not because I don't enjoy the plots, the characters, the encounters, or the combat--no, I enjoy these far too much, but the graphics look and feel old. I don't think it's a crime to expect graphics to progress, just as we expect plots, character development, combat, and other aspects of a game to evolve and improve. Also I think that RPG players have historically had lower expectations for the latest cutting edge graphics and special effects, but I don't think they want a game to look exceedingly dated.
quote:
Small time directors know not to try to copy big budget action titles. The have to creativly use small budgets to make an impact. I see all theses new RPG titles from small devs and they all follow the popular trnds in the industry: real time combat, fast paced action play, etc. Why not cater to the deprived turn-based crowd? That will make sure your title is not overlooked in the plethora of similar games released or on the shelves. And turn-based fans don't really care as much about graphics since we are forced to play old games all the time (to get our turn-based fix) It just seems like smart business to me.
It seems in many gaming circles there's a vast divide between the real-time and turn-based player camps. I play both types of games (as I mentioned, I'm a big Fallout fan--I've had Fallout on my hard drive since it came out). I believe both forms and permutations of them have strengths and weaknesses. I would rather leave this as another feature for the game developer to decide, because if they can create good real-time gameplay but would rather settle for mediocre or terrible turn-based, or if they could create great turn-based but opted for poorly implemented real-time gameplay, all the customers lose. What we end up with is a game that caters to no one. So it seems better to allow developers to decide what to concentrate their talents and time on, and decide how to market those games to the appropriate audiences.
_________________
Give me the shadows, shield me from the light, and I shall let nothing pass in the darkness of the night. |
|
Sun Apr 11, 2004 7:35 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
Some good thoughts all round here and Namirrha's comments are very appropriate. As far as graphics are concerned, I think the 3D revolution will hugely benefit indie developers. It's easy to obtain one of several free/cheap engines such as Torque and open source animation/graphics tools are now starting to become available. In 2D you need to animate different sprites for every class/equipment combination which is a huge problem. I see indie graphics becoming much better as they embrace 3D, although they will obviously never compete with large commercial products.
I do think Roqua is right about things like turn based combat. The broad market isn't going to buy most indie games, anyway, so I think they need to embrace the hardcore market that will look past the production elements to the gameplay underneath.
We'll certainly make sure we cover serious indie efforts whenever we find them - don't hesitate to point out a project if you find one. We'll have more on Chronicles of Ny in due course and some stuff with Crosscut Games (Runesword and now Dungeon Delvers) for starters.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:53 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Nimirrah,
I agree somewhat. I see the gaming industry going against economic theory and sound financial planning.
I think a big factor is that lack of securing debt by start-ups, and the unique way capital backers work in the gaming industry. A dev team will start production when some capital is procured. When they have a solid tech demo to show off they will use it to try and obtain the rest of the capital needed to finish production, publish, and distribute their product.
If they go to a bank for debt the bank will run through a financial analysis and find that is a large risk in not getting paid back. When they run the liquidity analysis they find that the devs have no way to pay off current maturity obligations (without obtaining more debt, since they have no cash inflows from operations). The solvency ratio will show that the claim on assets is poor since their seed capital went to buying plant and equipment, and the seed capital issuers will get that (also technology has a faster depreciation rate). Also dev houses usually go bankrupt furthering the lack of claim on assets and their ability to recoup losses. The profitability analysis shows that the firm is not profitable since they have no cash-inflows; the return to owners is not there. Game devs trying to produce capital usually have more of a poor man’s marketing plan, which only covers the tastes and trends aspect of a demand curve.
So if you are going to back a game developer and want to see a return on investment, you have to be in it for the long haul. If they run out of working capital by missing milestones and release dates, you have to issue more debt if you want to see a return on your original investment. In the second debt contract you will ask for a higher return due to the higher risk, and maybe even some executive say and decision-making ability in production. So now they are like a game publisher, trying to make decisions about a market they are largely ignorant about with a product that can be either a hit or a miss.
Now we look at the movie industry. Full capital is procured before filming. Producers make sure films stay on budget, though some proven profitable directors may go over budget. This is somewhat followed in the game industry and ToEE is a good example. Atari kept Trokia to their contract and that resulted in a buggy game, but the full debt was obtained before production.
Now economically, we look at the size of the market (total market demand), prices of related goods (compliments or substitutes), income, expectation of price changes, and taste and preferences. I think the most relevant for this discussion would be the taste and preferences and the price of related goods for substitutes. If you think all RPPs are the same then you have more substitutes, if you only like certain kinds of RPGS like turn-based then you do not. Either way turn-based games will generally be considered in their own market, substituted by only other turn-based RPGs (or maybe strategy games like x-com, JA, and Silent Storm).
I have distinct tastes and preferences in regards to video games. I like RPGs and I like them turn-based. There are many like me, but we are a much smaller piece of the pie than action-rpgs. We have no substitutes usually, and most of us know exactly what turned-based games are in production. In another post Drhuin was able to rattle off all the TB games being developed (a very small list), would he be able to do that for RT RPGS? I highly doubt it (but of course I don’t know for sure).
What was the last big named turn-based RPG produced with some marketing and a million dollar budget? ToEE. What was the last one before that? I don’t know. Wiz 8 had some marketing but it wasn’t a big budget game. Fallout 2 maybe?
Now look at the FO3 project. They looked at marketing trends and changed a valuable and profitable name to include RT. RT/TB hybrids do not work well from what I have seen (FO tactics, Arcanum). But the FO fans wanted TB (because fallout is a turn-based game) and the market analysis showed that the larger market wants RT. So you end up with a crap system that doesn’t work well either way.
Same thing with Multiplayer. Market analysis shows that people want multiplayer so FO3 added that. Increasing the budget and adding a lot of development time onto the project. If they left out RT and multiplayer the game might have of been close enough to gold to release with the smaller budget and dev time.
But the point of the economic demand curve was that if a small dev house goes turn based they put them self in a market with little to no substitutes. That increases the chance of selling, and allows for increasing the price.
And as Dhruin said, you can buy the rights to use an engine with good graphics cheaply.
Of course, all of this is my outside ignorant speculation. And I am also biased.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Apr 11, 2004 4:40 pm |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
A very intresting discussion. I'm a great supporter of Indie games too. I've been playing X2 a great deal and that's a 5 man team I believe. Gothic and Arx are two of my favourite games and they come from small developers. What's needed is better marketing, but that almost becomes a Catch 22 situation. I make decisions about what games I'll buy based solely on the information I get here at RPGDot and from the people in the forums who recommend games to me, like X2 (thanks Dhruin). I believe that sites like this are the lifeblood of the Indie developer for promoting their work and making it known to a large group of game players who can then pass it on to others.
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Sun Apr 11, 2004 11:30 pm |
|
|
Namirrha
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 218
Location: Utah County, Utah. |
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
Nimirrah,
I agree somewhat. I see the gaming industry going against economic theory and sound financial planning.
I think a big factor is that lack of securing debt by start-ups, and the unique way capital backers work in the gaming industry.
Sort of. I can see why the industry wants to do things a certain way, but I think it's more like tug of war between safety (proven sellers) and innovation (which keeps customers excited and coming back for more, but is obviously risky). Not to mention that the game industry is in a time of consolidation and maturation. Hollywood has had 70 or 80 years to sort itself out and decide how to make and market films properly. The game industry has been around for about 20-25 years, and is still more open and tumultuous. We are looking at a relatively young industry.
quote:
If they go to a bank for debt the bank will run through a financial analysis and find that is a large risk in not getting paid back.
Definitely. One can't blame the banks for not offering more investment capital to upcoming developers.
quote:
Now economically, we look at the size of the market (total market demand), prices of related goods (compliments or substitutes), income, expectation of price changes, and taste and preferences. I think the most relevant for this discussion would be the taste and preferences and the price of related goods for substitutes. If you think all RPPs are the same then you have more substitutes, if you only like certain kinds of RPGS like turn-based then you do not. Either way turn-based games will generally be considered in their own market, substituted by only other turn-based RPGs (or maybe strategy games like x-com, JA, and Silent Storm).
Yes, but see part of my worry is that the total market may not be accessible through the most convenient and economically efficient distribution channels (i.e., internet or mail order). Not only that, we must consider the make up the available and interested market. How many of those people would have broadband? How many would have dial-up? How do the developers supply their product to interested customers who have dial-up, etc? Most importantly, how do we reach these possibly interested people when we cannot go through the typical advertising and marketing channels such as game magazines, online advertising at major game sites, etc? (Because that quickly makes development costs rise. My friend who worked at Black Isle said that 50-70% of the cost of a game was advertising, so that means about $2-3 million.) An upcoming developer has the additional hurdle of establishing a name and following among those interested customers--which is usually facilitated by good marketing.
quote:
I have distinct tastes and preferences in regards to video games. I like RPGs and I like them turn-based. There are many like me, but we are a much smaller piece of the pie than action-rpgs. We have no substitutes usually, and most of us know exactly what turned-based games are in production. In another post Drhuin was able to rattle off all the TB games being developed (a very small list), would he be able to do that for RT RPGS? I highly doubt it (but of course I don’t know for sure).
So do I, but once again, are there enough turn-based RPG fans for a small dev house that wanted to sell its games through the most likely channels (i.e., internet, mail order, etc.) to support it? This is not even including those fans who will only play sci-fi/modern turn-based RPGs and those who will only play fantasy turn-based RPGs. To have an Indie game end up on a retail shelf requires extra negotiations, cash, and many other factors that we have not considered. TOEE could do this because Atari already has the necessary connections and clout.
quote:
What was the last big named turn-based RPG produced with some marketing and a million dollar budget? ToEE. What was the last one before that? I don’t know. Wiz 8 had some marketing but it wasn’t a big budget game. Fallout 2 maybe?
Much of the funding for TOEE came because it was a D&D product. The D&D namebrand greatly expands the possible audience. Fallout 2 wasn't very well funded from what I hear.
quote:
Now look at the FO3 project. They looked at marketing trends and changed a valuable and profitable name to include RT. RT/TB hybrids do not work well from what I have seen (FO tactics, Arcanum). But the FO fans wanted TB (because fallout is a turn-based game) and the market analysis showed that the larger market wants RT. So you end up with a crap system that doesn’t work well either way.
I didn't follow FO3 that much. By then, it became clear to me that Interplay was going down the drain. Especially after the disappointment that was Lionheart.
quote:
Same thing with Multiplayer. Market analysis shows that people want multiplayer so FO3 added that. Increasing the budget and adding a lot of development time onto the project. If they left out RT and multiplayer the game might have of been close enough to gold to release with the smaller budget and dev time.
I think it was doomed from the start. At the time Interplay started Fallout 3, I checked the SEC filings, and they did not show Interplay was financially healthy ($100,000 in the bank, IIRC). I also believe there are other problems that would've prevented FO3 from succeeding had it discarded those elements as you said. In general, the Interplay's leadership and direction is suspect.
quote:
But the point of the economic demand curve was that if a small dev house goes turn based they put them self in a market with little to no substitutes. That increases the chance of selling, and allows for increasing the price.
Once again, I worry about access and information. While you, I, Dhruin, and many others here are well informed, how many other casual gamers who like turn-based games are well informed? Have you ever noticed the number of people who frequent an RPG site like RPGCodex, which dedicates itself to turn-based games? Very few in relation to the number who visit RPGDot.
quote:
And as Dhruin said, you can buy the rights to use an engine with good graphics cheaply.
While Torque is a good engine, it may not fit all the requirements the developers have for their game in mind. In those cases, other commercial game engines or their own in-house engine may be more desirable. If the number of cheap and available Indie engines increases, this will be a great benefit to both developers and fans. Torque is a good beginning in the right direction. Right now, commercial engines are anything but cheap. Most rights go for $100,000-500,000. With Indie developers facing so many limitations, especially capital, buying the rights to a commercial engine may not be an option.
quote:
And I am also biased.
Count me in too.  I don't have a lot of training in economics or business management (yet), but I hope that my conclusions make some sense. There are also limits on what my friends in the industry will tell me.
_________________
Give me the shadows, shield me from the light, and I shall let nothing pass in the darkness of the night. |
|
Mon Apr 12, 2004 1:24 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
More excellent posts...are you trying to ruin your hard-won reputation, Roqua?  I think indie devs who try to pursue the casual market have (in most cases) little chance against the big-budget titles. Their audience -- almost by definition -- is the "hardcore" gamer who will overlook the (relatively) outdated graphics and other production issues. Therefore, making a TB game that excludes the casual market is simply not an issue, even though they are selling to a reduced market -- they always were in the first case.
However, this gets harder with a bigger project. At one end of the scale we have a part-time 2-man team like CrossCut or a one-man operation like Spiderweb (note: in both these examples things like art might get outsourced). At the other end we have a "full scale" developer like Larian who will distribute a retail boxed game, with obviously higher expenses and therefore needing more care in choosing their market.
So, would Divine Divinity have sold as well if it was made as a TB game? Perhaps Myrthos or Rend could answer that better than I but I thing it would. It's appeal to the broad market is inherently somewhat limited and I think many CRPG players liked it in spite of the RT combat -- I know RPGDot readers who wrote it off as a Diablo-clone. In my opinion it would have been a better game (albeit quite different) as a TB game and more embraced by it's natural market of CRPG fans.
But that's just my opinion/guess. Perhaps the relative success of DivDiv was because the RT combat allowed access to the casual market...but I don't think so.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Mon Apr 12, 2004 3:06 am |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:44 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
