[IGDA_indies] making money

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Ben Sawyer wrote:
>
> In terms of financial indpedence/making money...
> Doesn't this dismiss the many indies who don't necessarily
> want to achieve
> financial freedom from games?  The just want sustainability
> for their work
> be it covering their costs, or making their sweat worth their effort.

Do you mean:
- hobbyists who have a day job and piddle with games on the side?
- 'hobbyists' who have a day job, put 40 hours/week into their game
development on the side, and have no intention of ever trying to make a
living off their game development?
- consultants who fund their game development via non-game contracts?

I think "tons of effort on games, don't want to make a living from it"
is a rare breed, but I'm forced to concede that they do exist.

> I think financial freedom sounds a bit one-sided toward those
> indies who
> seek to commercialize their work in such a form as to be free
> of any other needs.

On the other hand, we can rightly ask what the IGDA Indie SIG should
focus on.  I think it should focus on making money, regardless of
whether a few oddballs don't want to make money.  There's no ultimate
freedom for indies if we can't develop self-sustaining business models.
And I'm sure we all realize that in the real world, making money means
making *more* money.  Otherwise you don't have any cushion for the risks
you take as an indie developer.

> And
> why should being an indie require funds as part of a SIG
> definition?

Because many of us have a strong commercial bias.  If I wanted to hang
out with hobbyists I could go to gamedev.net, comp.games.development.*,
or lotsa other places.  The point is to offer an organizational resource
that either isn't offered elsewhere, or is done much better than it is
done elsewhere.  I don't know of any Uber Resource for indies trying to
make a living.  I see plenty of pieces of the puzzle scattered here and
there.

> If you
> do that you short of set a charter to exclude those people
> who might want to
> call themselves indies but who aren't looking for any revenue.

I wouldn't want to pollute the brand identity of 'indie' to mean
anything to anyone.  I'd like it to mean something in the game industry,
i.e. guy trying to make money who isn't tied to publishers.  Indies and
'the indie segment' will only be taken seriously when they make a lot of
cash.  I don't want the brand identity of 'hobbyist', i.e. someone who
doesn't deal with commercial realities.  That won't sound good when I'm
trying to negotiate a distribution deal.

> If you ask me the Indie Game Sig's charter should be to "ensure the
> sustainability of independently produced, and distributed
> computer games"
> the groups charter shouldn't be to support indies itself but to do the
> things it sees as useful that make it possible for
> independently produced games to flourish.

You seem to be offering a gratuitous level of indirection.  How do you
think anything is sustained without money?  GPL Communism?  Sheer force
of will?  It takes enough force of will as it is, thanks.

> I think it's a mistake to equate indie with independent
> business.  That may
> well be 85% of the goal but this SIG has a danger of
> devolving into one that
> is only about business practice if it corners its focus as such.

I share the concern, since I'm in the 'innovation' camp.  However, if
this SIG did a good job at business goals, and only that, I'd consider
such a devolution quite a success story.


Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

"The pioneer is the one with the arrows in his back."
                          - anonymous entrepreneur