Generic free mobile indie crap

Grassroot Indie


Natural Abilities:
Insomnia
Thick Skin
Daydreamer

My main life goal isn't to be bought out/employed by a major corporation. Games are not products, they are games. Games are art. What artist throws art he slapped together out there as quickly as possible? What does that express? Is it irony? It is sure ironic that everybody is trying to make money being indies when the only real indies are people not solely motivated by money.

This thread has been beneficial for me and hopefully others as well.

 

I don't want to be bought out by a corporation either, but I don't think corporations are buying any company who rushes crappy products to market. There may be people doing that who hope it happens, but those people also hope that Flappy clone 6574 makes them a fortune.

 

Indie is just a concept, like art. One can not make art, with money on his mind - only passion and love.
You are independent when you have the time, the money and are brave enough to invest both into something new, original without begging on knees in front of a publisher.

For me it doesn't matter, I invest time, money, passion .. and my hope is to get money back. Therefor I am working on a extremely polished fun product. Alone .. 'in my basement'

 

Actually, that's a valid point. Maybe game devs arguing about what is indie is similar to artists arguing about what is real art & what is just a corporate sell out to make money rather than push boundaries etc.

Everyone wants to be part of a special group but as more people join it becomes less special so they keep trying to refine & narrow the definition.

 

I'd love to be bought out by a corporation.

 

That does make sense although to me it seems like the opposite is happening. Probably because I was used to seeing Indie Game Devs as the people who were selling their games in little classified ads in the back of game mags or putting out free games in the public domain and when you beat the game (sometimes just a demo) you could order the full game or the next games in the series. Shareware. They were nearly always a single dev, a husband & wife or a few friends.

So that has stuck in my head all of these years. Sure some grew into real companies and when they did I didn't see those as Indies any more. There used to be such a huge difference between the two and these days with everything digital perhaps the lines have blurred greatly because we have everyone from a lone dev to AAA selling on the exact same marketplaces.

I do kind of wish there was a term for the kind of game devs I am describing because I've always supported those lone wolf / mom & pop style developers. Teams of 7, 12, 15 or 50 people I just don't see the same way. I can relate to the lone dev and small team of 2 to 3 people. Can't relate to the big teams same as I cannot relate to AAA.

Definitely agree it is just a word so doesn't matter. I can do some due diligence and find out some background info. Most people probably don't have this view and couldn't care less. Different people just have different things that are important to them. I guess I've just always supported the underdogs and so it is different for me.

 

+1

I want to be an indie just like Notch 8) haha
And yea this one person alone is independent now, more than ever




I think I remember someone saying once, indie = hobbyist. independet, because your main source of income is something else, and you do not _invest_ time. (remember what I said about art )

honestly no game ever made me want to play it just because [big label on cover:] *indie!!!*. If something or someone is called indie, ok. This alone has no meaning for me
When I love a game its because someone did something great out of 18 hours a day concepting with sticks and stones, programming on a brick, and yet put f****** passion into this. And in the end achieving something greater and more fun than all the big AAA studios.


I lost my point, sorry
Personally I just don't like the idea that people could think of me or my game as 'indie' Sounds like that there is no risk, no blood, no sweat, no hard work involved. No time, no money. If I fail I am broke, so no I am everything but not independent lol

 

Well for me it lets me be part of changes that can reach more people. It's not merely financially motivated. Look at Zombie, he works for the house of mouse, and that lets him touch a lot more people with his own creations than he probably would've.

 

are you sure about that?

 

Yeah because a corporation isn't necessarily evil.

 

I support good games, end of story.

The developer back story doesn't interest me at all if their game isn't interesting. Making a crappy games is easy. Supporting crappy games doesn't help anyone. Games are an art form, the product defines the artist.

 

Go tell that to Simon Cowell, or the AAA companies who make millions re-skinning the same old product every year. One can make Art with money on their mind, MANY people do.

It doesn't mean they release bad products and it certainly doesn't mean they don't deserve to be fiscally successful (well going by some larger game developers over the past half decade that's debatable, but anyway).

It's silly to believe there isn't well proven methodologies, dirty tricks and formula's available in certain Artforms. Especially in the massively competitive mobile and app franchises..

But the rest I'll agree with, after "indie" gold rush fever. The only thing left is to be better and to try something "different" whether that's a hybrid re-hash of other proven methodology, hell just getting a decent well put together game that's a carbon copy of AAA games a decade ago would be a step up in most cases.

 

Fair enough. I don't share that view simply because there are many good games. For me supporting the lone wolf or tiny teams is very much like supporting small business in general.

That doesn't mean I'll buy any game made by a tiny team. Just means I'm more interested in supporting those. If I go to Steam and find 15 games that all looked good and wanted to narrow them down... I'd favor the ones made by tiny teams. I often do take at least a passing interest in kind of getting to know the people behind the games. That is one of the cool things about small businesses in general.

It is becoming less of a big deal though just due to the sheer number of them. It used to be a cool thing because it was a bit rare. But yeah the more people doing it even I am moving towards not caring a bit about who made it and what their story is. Because it just really isn't any big deal any more when there are people everywhere doing it.

 

Maybe a hobbyist releases free games, an indie releases games to try & cover costs, & a studio tries to make enough to cover costs & fund the development of the next game.

 

Extremely true, I find any mention of that game is way too mainstream for my taste!

 

Like Mario Kart... At the very least, Nintendo tend to aim to toss at least something new in for that.

 

Nah, a hobbyist need not release. Hobbyist/aspiring/amateur/pro covers things pretty clearly. Indie today, means "downloaded unity/ue4".

 

My games are originals left unpublished to foster your imagination. Enjoy. LOL.

 

Buy him out boys!

 

Why are people complaining about the same old thing? Do not forget, people WANT the same old thing - just slightly better or slightly varied. This week, I'll have pizza but I'll try a different topping.

How many pizzas have you guys eaten, and how much did you enjoy it each time? There are staples. Classics. Things you return to for another hit each time.

 

I want (enter name of game franchise here) but with a new number after it.

 

Or you could follow the Star Wars model and just forget about numbers. In order of release.

Star Wars Battlefront
Star Wars Battlefront II
Star Wars Battlefront

Despite the fact that the developers haven't mastered the kindergarten skill of counting to three, I will still be buying and playing the latest game.

 

Windows 10.

 

YAAAAY I'm finally an Indie (*Runs around, does my happy dance*).

 

Isn't that the same company that brought us the XBox numbering? Xbox, Xbox 360, Xbox One.

But I agree. Version numbers in windows are particularly weird.

 

Mac is pretty odd as well.

 

Let's see...10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.10, 10.11. You're right, that's just bizarre! What were they thinking, putting numbers in order like that, and not randomly skipping any? How is anyone supposed to tell what the most recent version is? Who even does that?! (iPhone numbering, on the other hand....)

--Eric

 

According to wiki these appear to be very straight forward and sequential. Am I missing something?

 

The new Unity.

 

I just meant the infinite 10 thing. I've been a Mac user since the beginning. Professionally since 7.5.5/7.6. Every few years there would be piont and int increases. Some better, some worse (8.6). After 10 beta'd, 9.1/2 hung around the became classic for a while. Then just 10 for the last 15 or so years. There big changes at 6,7 (8 not so much), 9 and 10. 16 years before 10, 16 after. Sure, next/x86, was huge, but prior versions were huge a well.

Certainly not as radicle as other software, but still not super straight forward, historically. It's also possible that when the switch again, it might not be 11.

 

Lol. This is one area macs can't claim on beating Windows. We started with 3.1, a decent version number. Then we went to 95, 98 and ME all named after the release year. Then there was NT, named for a feature set. Then there was XP, I never figured that one out. Then you had Vista, a version so pretentious it was named after the software itself. Finally even Microsoft realised the ridiculousness of the situation and went with 7, and 8. Then they jumped straight to 10 because 9 had too many bad marketing associations from 95 and 98.

I believe windows wins this round

 

More than being a big change, OS X was a different OS entirely (OS X is more of a brand than a number); the only way it could run the older MacOS apps was with a built-in VM. Basically they started the version numbers over from the beginning since it was a new OS, and the 10 thing is actually superfluous. e.g. 10.9.5 is really just OS X version 9.5. So yeah, adding a 10 in front of the version numbers for no good reason is kinda weird; logically the first version should have been 1.0 rather than 10.0.

--Eric

 

I'm glad you chimed in with this...people really need to read it because it defines the word today. I just wrapped up working on Sword Coast Legends with n-Space. We are considered an "indie" studio, but I was working in a large corporate office, with a team of maybe 50 some odd people (artists, coders, marketing, etc). It can mean anything to this, down to the single guy working in his living room.

 

But... who considers you / them an Indie studio? A company with 50 people seems like it would quite simply be just a regular game development company or if preferred a small game development company. Not AAA. Not Indie. I mean I get what people are saying to a degree but what is the difference between this company and Bethesda, Disney or any of the multitude of other companies accepted as AAA studios? Or more importantly, what is the difference between this company and say any other "normal" non-corporate / franchise business out there?

That's the part I am trying to understand. What if the gaming sites start referring to it as "the new AAA company n-Space" because they made a smash hit one of the most popular games of the year... would that then change it so it is suddenly a AAA studio? I guess I'm just not following how simply forming a new big company ("big" by lone wolf/small team/local small business standards) makes it any different than an established big company. Of course, not having the history and product lines but the idea is they will in time, right?

Not that Wikipedia is always right but if we go by their definition of AAA: AAA (pronounced "triple A") is a classification term used for games with the highest development budgets and levels of promotion or the highest ratings by a consensus of professional reviewers.

That would imply the other companies who do not have the highest development budgets and levels of promotion or the highest ratings would simply be game development companies. Although some would classify them as AA or A studios.

UPDATE:

Wikipedia:
This is a partial list of independent video game developers that are not owned by a publisher. Independent developers retain operational control over their companies, pipelines, and organizations and often may work with proprietary engines or other proprietary software. These teams may range in size from single individuals to major companies with hundreds of employees.

So yeah all of this time what they call an Indie is very different from what I think of as an indie. Not completely different in that yes of course what I saw as Indie definitely would have full control and not be owned by a publisher. But they also would have been cottage industry businesses very small primarily working out of their home.

Anyway, I got it now. Sorry for being so thick-headed folks. lol

 

Let's all go make some weird games that won't sell well and play them.

 

I think a big part of my confusion is that Indie Games on the other hand are defined much closer to what Indie means to me (in terms of game dev):

Wikipedia:
There is no exact widely accepted definition of what constitutes an "indie game".
However, indie games generally share certain characteristics.
Indie games are developed by individuals, small teams, or small independent companies; such companies are often specifically formed for the development of one specific game.

Typically, indie games are smaller than mainstream titles. Indie game developers are generally not financially backed by video game publishers (as these are risk averse and prefer big budget games) and usually have little to no budget available.

Being independent, indie developers do not have controlling interests or creative limitations and do not require publisher approval as mainstream game developers usually do.

Design decisions are thus also not limited by the allocated budget.
Furthermore, smaller team sizes increase individual involvement.
Small teams, scope, and no creative restrictions have made indie games known for innovation, creativity, and artistic experimentation. Developers limited in ability to create graphics can rely on gameplay innovation.

Now the above is a much closer match to what I see as an Indie Game Developer. Kind of odd that when looking at the definition from the viewpoint of Indie Game we see more of the traditional view of an Indie Game Developer and when looking at the definition from the viewpoint of Indie Game Developer we see this broader term similar to the movie and musician industries.