Unreal Engine 5 - unbelievable.

[mid_gen]

I didn't say anything about Devs, I specifically underlined big AAA publishers as the culprit.They have zero passion for gaming, they only care for the monies and shareholders. Indie usually have much more freedom but also more responsibility with smaller teams. In my personal carrier (IT but not game development) I've worked for big corpos and I've worked (and currently do) for small teams with much more freedom in making decisions (but also more responsibility). There's never been any passion or meaning in the former that I could see in anyone working there, but much the opposite in the latter.

In my experience (actually working at big AAA developers and publishers, not just listening to youtube talking heads that make a living dunking on other people's work), there is no lack of passion for gaming. They HAVE to care about the monies and shareholders, because huge sums of money, time and risk are required to produce AAA games. Just the same as small indie teams HAVE to care about money, and investors, there's just less of it at stake.

There are the same amount of people in the senior leadership roles that have full freedom in the key making decision in AAA vs indie (the directors: creative/art/tech/game/online/LD/etc), except the former have hundreds, even thousands of people working underneath them, and by the nature of just working with large number of human beings, doing that job in AAA is much harder.

And whose fault is that? Who is making these, often senseless, decisions? Most of the time it's not dev team itself, is it? Sure, there are big projects that come out great anyway (BG3 and other) but it seems to be relatively rare these days. Unless we look at Asian games, which have much more lean approach.

It's nobodies fault that games are more difficult to make the bigger and more ambitious the project is. It's the reality of any collaborative endeavor. Big video games combine the technical challenge of a major software engineering project targeting multiple hardware platforms, with the uncertainty and dynamism of realising an artistic vision, and ultimately producing a product that is all about 'feeling' and emotion.

It's a uniquely difficult and challenging enterprise, which you can't really comprehend the complexity of until you've been in the trenches and actually done it. It's easy to be critical from a position of total ignorance.

 

[Tinek]

There are the same amount of people in the senior leadership roles that have full freedom in the key making decision in AAA vs indie (the directors: creative/art/tech/game/online/LD/etc), except the former have hundreds, even thousands of people working underneath them, and by the nature of just working with large number of human beings, doing that job in AAA is much harder.

Have you missed a bunch of X posts this and past years from various members of game development and publishing teams, pushing not only political agenda but also directly offending customers? A few of them (mostly senior positions like producer, or lead designer etc.) stated directly that they hate gamers with passion - I don't think that's the passion we want but at least market reacted properly and they simply didn't sell well at all. I've never seen a passion for anything but money in big corporations, from the inside. I'm sure there are a handful people there the might be passionate, but huge majority isn't and it shows.

It's nobodies fault that games are more difficult to make the bigger and more ambitious the project is.

I disagree. It's totally a fault of someone in the leadership who push to make gigantic and very expensive games instead of good games. Go leaner, problems will instantly shrink - as you pretty much admitted yourself. Look at Asian studios, they are much smaller, they focus on fun and core being good and their games sell often way better than western AAA, with much smaller budgets etc. It can be done. It's like with Hollywood films these days - huge financial risk because they blow budgets out to space for no good reason, which then results in boring, unimaginative films that just reuse same things over and over again, to stay on the safe side. Indie can afford to go out of that box, AAA with huge budgets can't, apparently. And that is aside all the idiotic politics included in games that nobody wants to see there, as games are escapism and not reality simulators, usually.

It's a uniquely difficult and challenging enterprise, which you can't really comprehend the complexity of until you've been in the trenches and actually done it. It's easy to be critical from a position of total ignorance.

As a consumer I want a good, fresh game. Not rehashed old ideas in new skin with slapped politics inside, with gigantic budget and then overpriced to buy (£80 being the new standard it seems, plus dlc and all other kinds of scummy monetisation added on top). And as a consumer I don't care one bit how the dish is made, how hard is it etc. - make it good and fun and with good prices or I won't buy it. That's why we have so many AAA flops for a while now. Solution given above - make it be less hard by going lean. There's no other way. Personally I hardly touch AAA these days, as almost every time I do, the game just sucks royally as an actual game and not some fancy tech demo. I've had much better luck with indie and "AA" games.

 

[mid_gen]

Have you missed a bunch of X posts this and past years from various members of game development and publishing teams, pushing not only political agenda but also directly offending customers? A few of them (mostly senior positions like producer, or lead designer etc.) stated directly that they hate gamers with passion - I don't think that's the passion we want but at least market reacted properly and they simply didn't sell well at all. I've never seen a passion for anything but money in big corporations, from the inside. I'm sure there are a handful people there the might be passionate, but huge majority isn't and it shows.

I disagree. It's totally a fault of someone in the leadership who push to make gigantic and very expensive games instead of good games. Go leaner, problems will instantly shrink - as you pretty much admitted yourself. Look at Asian studios, they are much smaller, they focus on fun and core being good and their games sell often way better than western AAA, with much smaller budgets etc. It can be done. It's like with Hollywood films these days - huge financial risk because they blow budgets out to space for no good reason, which then results in boring, unimaginative films that just reuse same things over and over again, to stay on the safe side. Indie can afford to go out of that box, AAA with huge budgets can't, apparently. And that is aside all the idiotic politics included in games that nobody wants to see there, as games are escapism and not reality simulators, usually.


As a consumer I want a good, fresh game. Not rehashed old ideas in new skin with slapped politics inside, with gigantic budget and then overpriced to buy (£80 being the new standard it seems, plus dlc and all other kinds of scummy monetisation added on top). And as a consumer I don't care one bit how the dish is made, how hard is it etc. - make it good and fun and with good prices or I won't buy it. That's why we have so many AAA flops for a while now. Solution given above - make it be less hard by going lean. There's no other way. Personally I hardly touch AAA these days, as almost every time I do, the game just sucks royally as an actual game and not some fancy tech demo. I've had much better luck with indie and "AA" games.

As I said, it's easy to say you have all the answers when you're looking in from a position of complete ignorance.

Indie games fail just as often as AAA.....you just don't hear about it as it's not big news. Promising projects disappear into the ether all the time. Doesn't get clicks though reporting on small fry.

 

[Tinek]

As I said, it's easy to say you have all the answers when you're looking in from a position of complete ignorance.

That's exactly the position of the customer, in every industry - they pay for the product, they want it to be good, that's it. Seriously, do you go to restaurants and demand to be shown how the meal is made exactly before you decide to eat it or you just buy it and enjoy it (or not enjoy and then never buy there again)? I can tell you as a fact, average customer doesn't care one bit how hard it is to make something - and they shouldn't, it's not their job nor business. And if customers don't care one bit, it's never an excuse they will accept, they will just choose a different product.

Indie games fail just as often as AAA.....

Perhaps but they cost much less and the expectations of them being stellar are much smaller too. They need to sell much less to go on plus to that and do not complain they only sold few million copies so it's a total flop for them. And for the consumer the choice of games is much bigger.

you just don't hear about it as it's not big news.

And why would it be? So I need to hear about every single failed dish in a restaurant (to swing back to initial comparison)?

Promising projects disappear into the ether all the time. Doesn't get clicks though reporting on small fry.

And it's also meaningless, you just move on to another title out of hundreds available. Not so much with highly advertised AAA full of promises initially but then just full of disappointment for £80+.

 

[varkanoid]

Perhaps but they cost much less and the expectations of them being stellar are much smaller too. They need to sell much less to go on plus to that and do not complain they only sold few million copies so it's a total flop for them. And for the consumer the choice of games is much bigger.

I agree with mid_gen you are being ignorant. Indie games may "cost" in monetary terms less but in other ways the cost is very high. Some of these Indie's are depending on their game to sell well to live on. Also why would an Indie not set expectations high that their game will do well if not they may as well not bother. They dont actually need to sell less they need to sell more just because their development cost is low doesnt mean they expect to sell less to survive. A lot of Indies its make or break and like I said they are depending on their game selling to put food on the table. Just look at Vampire Survivors or Thank Goodness You're Here which has won awards. They all expect them to be brilliant to the best of their ability and to hope they sell loads. I just think you need to look into the whole game dev world a bit more and remove your customer blinkers.

 

[Tinek]

Indie games may "cost" in monetary terms less but in other ways the cost is very high. Some of these Indie's are depending on their game to sell well to live on.

Indie includes often also so called "AA" companies, not just tiny teams. Indie really just means they don't belong to a big publisher, are independent and by that have much higher creative freedom, etc. For Example, BG3 by that definition is indie too (both game and the company which created it) and they're not short on cash. They're also not bloated for no good reason and not just a "safe" rehash.

Also why would an Indie not set expectations high that their game will do well if not they may as well not bother.

Nobody expects small indie games for small monies to have all bells and whistles of big AAA games, do they? I am not talking about them selling well, I am talking about gamers' expectations about what's included.

They dont actually need to sell less

A game that cost £50k to produce vs a game that cost £100+ milion to produce of course needs to sell a lot less copies, even if the former charges only £1 per copy (vs £80 per copy for the latter). It's a very simple math really, isn't it?

they need to sell more just because their development cost is low doesnt mean they expect to sell less to survive.

Your math is just not math-ing here.

A lot of Indies its make or break and like I said they are depending on their game selling to put food on the table.

Just do a simple math like mentioned earlier, or - even better idea - listen to some indie devs talking about how much monies they make whilst charging very little per copy and having much lower prices in poorer countries, whilst also selling on Steam and paying their teams living wages. Example of such indie dev (aside mentioned BG3) is Pirate Software - the owner often talks about their exact cost etc. showing how much easier it can be for a proper indie dev studio to be successful. To that he also comes from AAA background (ex Blizzard dev), so knows it very well from both sides. And that's just one example. A lot of indie people talk very openly about these things - I haven't taken my opinion from my behind but base them on what I read written by many different indie devs. Of course, it's a capitalist market like any other - plenty come and vanish without a trace, not all indie games are good. Plenty of AAA games also suck and also do not sell well, though.

Just look at Vampire Survivors or Thank Goodness You're Here which has won awards. They all expect them to be brilliant to the best of their ability and to hope they sell loads.

Citation needed for the latter statement and in general I don't get what your point is here and what you're even responding to.

I just think you need to look into the whole game dev world a bit more and remove your customer blinkers.

Yeah... maybe read your own first sentence again and have a thought about it.

 

[dis]

no one I know in the industry would call Larian (bg3) an indie dev. Way way too big. 400+ staff, multiple offices, and they are also a publisher.

They are independent, but it's not the same thing.

 

[Armageus]

They are independent, but it's not the same thing.

So what is indie short for?

 

[dis]

So what is indie short for?

Started off meaning independent, words change, industry has changed a lot since then.

Now it pretty much just means small studio not owned by a larger entity.

CIG/Star Citizen, that's independent, don't think anyone would call them indie. Probably bunch of other examples

 

[Curlyriff]

I feel this covers how Indie is taken for the most part. This doesn't really clarify clearly but points to the evolution of what Indie has meant. So you could certainly argue in deed that Larian and CIG are Indie in that self published and thus not using an external pubishers funding to create etc but at same time they are large studios with clear AAA directions even if they started otherwise.

CIG is odd in that it deffo for the first 3-4 years of dev were very much Indie in terms of scale, budget and such and when it exploded in funding and dev count has emerged as a AAA without ever releasing a game so sits very much in a weird Indie/AAA mix.

What is an Indie Game? A Comprehensive Guide

Confused about what an indie game is? Our comprehensive guide demystifies indie games, exploring their history, famous studios & developers, and their impact on the gaming industry.

www.torontofilmschool.ca

 

[Tinek]

no one I know in the industry would call Larian (bg3) an indie dev. Way way too big. 400+ staff, multiple offices, and they are also a publisher.

Indie = independent. What's difficult about that word that cause such confusion?

They are independent, but it's not the same thing.

It literally is.

 

[Tinek]

Started off meaning independent, words change, industry has changed a lot since then.

Now it pretty much just means small studio not owned by a larger entity.

It doesn't. The meaning didn't change one bit. Independent is independent. You can assign any arbitrary definition but that's your definition not the public one. There are plenty of "AA" studios out there, with relatively big games who are also indie. It's never been just about tiny studios with 1-2 people. These always were included anyway, but not solely.

CIG/Star Citizen, that's independent, don't think anyone would call them indie. Probably bunch of other examples

They are just evidence that indie doesn't have to mean cheap or bad. They often work differently than AAA studios that are owned by big publishers and that's the real difference here - it's about creative freedom and freedom to set up their own financial needs, pricing etc. instead of big publishers telling you what to do and then closing your studio after good sales anyway. It doesn't mean they can't make loads of monies and have big games - they can. We had examples of tiny team selling huge amount of games and becoming millionaires too. As long as they are independent, they are indie, irrelevant of how rich or how big.

 

[dis]

The meaning didn't change one bit. Independent is independent.

Yes, but "indie' isn't independent.
Same way an App isn't an application, or a demo isn't a demonstration. Same but nuanced.
no one talks about game x having a demonstration you could download last week.

It doesn't matter to me, just pitching into the convo with viewpoints as a dev who's been around for a while.
Small company, small (or zero cash burn), big company high cash burn (and people that make cash based decisions)

 

[Tinek]

Yes, but "indie' isn't independent.
Same way an App isn't an application, or a demo isn't a demonstration. Same but nuanced.

You can invent you own meaning, that doesn't mean it's correct. Words have specific meaning for a reason - otherwise communication breaks down and discussion becomes meaningless.

 

[SonicSW20]

Yes, but "indie' isn't independent.

"Indie" across all forms of media in reference to a company structure means independent. An "indie" music label means it isn't owned by one of the major music labels, for example.

 

[mid_gen]

Well I enjoyed my time at well known indie developer Ubisoft

 

[SonicSW20]

Well I enjoyed my time at well known indie developer Ubisoft

Ubisoft would be analagous to a major in the music industry, as such not "indie".

 

[mid_gen]

Ubisoft would be analagous to a major in the music industry, as such not "indie".

So it’s not as simple as ‘independent’?

Who knew?

 

[SonicSW20]

So it’s not as simple as ‘independent’?

Who knew?

In music it is that simple. The majors are Universal, Sony, and Warner and between them they own the majority of the industry. I personally don't know enough about the big game publishers to be that definitive in the gaming space, I'll admit.

 

[dis]

Avalanche, Frontier, People can fly, CIG, Valve
All independent, but all large (some publicly traded) and probably lacking the creative independence that i think most people would associate with Indie

Companies certainly start to loose the indie feel (creative independence) internally at a certain size, or when there's a C-suite and people steering direction due to profit/loss projections.

I dunno, in an age where you can self publish via Steam, or roll your own web store, it's a difficult one to nail down. You don't *need* a publisher anymore