Sad State of Affairs
I am selling a derivative game.
There exists no facilitation for the financial support of an independent, small-budget game developer. Since the health of my investment lies entirely in the market’s hands, and since the market has shown a preference for that type of game, it is a perceptually less risky investment for someone to which this game represents all or nothing. I do not have a portfolio of commercial games to offset my losses should the game tank. Therefore, any time I invest in the game need to be fully realized so that it may afford me the opportunity to completely develop and release experimental titles.
If there was a means in place to facilitate this experimentation without such risk on my part, then I would persue such course. But there isn’t, and so - as a wannabe experimental game developer - I must rely on myself to support such ventures. To do that, I must be financially stable enough to take such risks. To become so stable, I have chosen ancillary development of popular genre titles. That is, I would like to remain within the medium for the financial support, rather than seek support from another field.
This is the “broken industry,” and it has more than a menial impact on the development and maturity of the medium.
The industry hasn barely moved forward since its inception. What would have been excusable 15 years ago simply isn’t anymore. Games ran on pretty abysmal hardware, chock full of limitations. Technology has advanced. Budgets have skyrocketted. But the content remains the same. “Shoot enemy. Pick up health. Repeat.”
Actually, I retract that. At least back then we had handfuls of thoughtful games, like Adventures and true puzzlers. Today — the exceptionally rare gem notwithstanding — we are in a Dark Ages of game development.
All because publishers have opted for the path of safety, without any regard for the future of the medium. Is this perpetual? Will it go on forever? Will our medium die the horrible death of obscurity, before being resurrected in the future as a land of golden opportunity for creative expression? Has it already? Are we on the upswing, or the downswing?
What do you think?
August 18th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Wow… that is a depressing view of the game industry. Thankfully, I don’t think it’s an accurate one. The game industry has come farther faster since it’s inception than television or movies. It’s been, what, 20 some years and today’s games are honestly better than ever. Games were not better back in the day. They were not less derivative. They were less popular, maybe, and there was less ground to retread… is that where the confusion is coming from?
You are also making a mistaken assumption that good games ever go out of style. I sincerely doubt that the market is ever less hungry for a high quality, fun game, regardless of what genre it’s in. A developer that blames the market for his/her losses is failing to understand why they’re games are lacking.
If you make derivative games, then you need to constantly analyze the market to see which derivative genres are popular. If you concentrate on making a good, fun game that has personal meaning to you, you will always be ensured a hungry audience.
So yeah, I guess keep your chin up. Games aren’t going anywhere.
August 20th, 2006 at 3:16 am
Developing a match-3 game and accusing publishers that they have opted for the path of safety is quite odd.
August 20th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
From time to time I have those thoughts myself, but then I quickly repeat this words: Stop wasting energy worring. Start using it creatively.
I personaly don’t mind cloning and cause we are independent I always say: it is my INDEPENDENT choice to clone a game
… and not your f…g business (unless you don’t like competition).
August 20th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Lakibuk, you cannot compare a one-man indie operation with a multi-million dollar publishing house. One or two failures can quickly obliterate even the most determined independent developer. The big publishers, on the other hand, accrue huge losses in the majority of their portfolios. They rely on a handful of top-sellers to balance their failures and keep their books in the black.
As you can see, I do not have that luxury - one loss and I’m out.
August 20th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
The opposite is true. You have all freedom, you can do what you like. The big ones have employees, shareholders, huge marketing expenses and i don’t know what. All you invest is your time.
August 21st, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Sorry but… 1-2 failure and “most determined independent developer” are not compatible term.
If you surrender after JUST ONLY 2 failures, is better if you don’t even start!
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:29 am
lakibuk: Don’t undervalue your time - it’s the most valuable thing you’ve got.
Jack: I’m talking about blowing the financial investment. An individual can only absorb so much financial loss before succumbing. I agree, though, be prepared for plenty of failure!
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:00 am
Всё будет хорошо! :-]
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:28 am
Well, so far my first title has been a financial failure (hasn’t even paid for the press release yet!) even though I put a lot of love and creativity into it.
It was done for love, not money, so on every other level it was a success for me.
But since it would be nice to recoup some of my losses… say, is that the match-3 bandwagon I see? Room for one more?
August 27th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
I don’t quite understand your initial post. In the first half, you’re complaining that there isn’t a low risk way to create experimental games, then in the second half of your post you lambaste the industry for doing basically the same thing as you.
You’ve made the judgment that it’s less risky to do a derivative in a crowded market rather than an experimental/original game in a niche or unknown sized market. You chose to put your eggs in that basket. Though it’s up for debate whether that’s the best business decision in the current market.
Retail publishers have to appease shareholders and attempt to maximize their ROI. Just like you’re afraid to do an experimental game because it might sink your Indie studio, publishers are afraid to sink 3-5 million on games that don’t have a clear market because it could reduce their quarterly earnings and reduce their stock. Sure, it won’t sink their company but if 2-3 games bomb, a few executives at the top are getting fired and possibly some smaller studios disbanded.
You have the exact same attitude as the retail execs, both of you have the resources to experiment but both of you are risk-adversed so you feel you must do derivatives to survive. The only difference is you’re concerned about your company and the executives are concerned about their jobs.
August 28th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Indeed, time is our most valuable resource. Let’s spend it where it counts pursuing what we enjoy.
There is a point you can reach, where you’ve worked on so many games that you don’t care about, that you stop caring about game development entirely. I’ve been there, and it was a long walk back. Now the only time I’m afraid to spend is time working on projects that don’t interest me.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:51 am
Chris, I’d agree with you if they weren’t already losing money on most of their games. It’s the few hits a publisher has that keeps it afloat - most of their titles sink.
Dan, I felt that way about halfway through development of Jeweltopia. At this point, I’ve finally owned up to the need to create something I enjoy, rather than try to appeal to an audience. Of course, I’m not forgetting them, either…