[IGDA_indies] making money

[Ronald Hobbs]

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:

>Brian Hook wrote:
>  
>
>>Brandon Van Every wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Do we agree that being an Indie is about making money?
>>>      
>>>
>>Well, only in as much that Indies like to eat.  To me, being an indie
>>is about having freedom.  Making money provides freedom.
>>    
>>
>
>Ok, so the goal of all Indies is to be financially independent?  We
>might like more, but that's the bare minimum we want to achieve.
>
>
>Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
>Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA
>
>When no one else sells courage, supply and demand take hold.
>
Maybe I should've stated it want to make a living. I think deep down 
what indies want is to create games. All the time, just create them play 
them and give them to other people. As has been said the financial 
realities of this means that you have to be able to make a living out of 
it, and a bloody good one too if you're aiming to give up your day job.

In my view the SIG should be about firstly giving a communal discussion 
platform for indies, which it does. Of course there are all kinds of 
ways that unification under a single banner can help indies. Some 
examples that spring to mind are exposing contacts and methods for 
indies to self-publish, and the same thing for exposing themselves on 
retail shelves. I've had dealings in the past where if you can get buddy 
buddy enough with a store or chain manager he'll let you put anything on 
the shelf that doesn't hurt his bottom line.

I just keep thinking of what SIG stands for, and I keep wondering if 
there could be any purpose served by simply explaining to the rest of 
the industry what indies are about. Effectively turning the SIG into one 
of these fact finding committees, trying to find out why the indie 
industry doesn't get absorbed into the mainstream, indeed why are 
mainstream developers classifying themselves as indie. Is being an indie 
the rockstar versus the mainstream popstar? Perhaps the SIG is not meant 
to directly help indies, but to help the image of indies in the industry 
as a whole and thereby indirectly helping indies by raising their profile.

As for mainstream games with innovation....

Basically anything done by Peter Molyneux, sure black and white is an 
extension of the old populous, but he did that one to so you can't 
really blame the guy, the AI in it is really fantastic. Add to that his 
upcoming releases, the Movies and Fable they both are looking very 
interesting. I've been waiting for Fable for years now.
Another good lot is Elixir studios the game Republic was astounding in 
how unlike everything else it was (personally I though it was similar to 
a very very large game of Chess but that didn't make it bad)
Then there is also the Creative Assembly, the Total War series, nuff said.

There's something to be said of the one's I've mentioned though, all of 
the studios are headed up by people that have been in the industry for 
ages, paid their dues and then struck out on their own. Perhaps in some 
definition that makes them indies. In light of this I would also put 
forward that indies are slightly idealistic. I don't want to go to a 
major studio and spend half my life slogging it out in the coding pit 
before I get recognised enough to be allowed some freedom. All of the 
guys I mentioned got into the industry when there was no bloody 
industry. I want to do the same, obviously I can't compete with the big 
boys on their turf but I can build a game that focuses on a different 
market much better than any of the big houses can, as Chris Crawford 
said the games industry is for young males by young males. I believe the 
indie industry is about diversity and simply because indies are forced 
to work in markets and genres that has not been focused upon before 
means that innovation is happening all the time. I'm sure I just 
contradicted my self in some way.

My apologies for the rambling nature of my thoughts.