The Indies Will Ruin Everything!
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is kind of off topic. Where I live the word niche refers to a place in the cemetery where graves are stacked on top of each other (we call them nichos). All these phrases and terms like "finding your niche", "niche audience", "niche-based market" have sort of an ominous tone for me.Gorrath said:
Kinda ironic that major publishers have to learn to find them or die.
My old drum teacher used to say to me:
"A drummer with only a kick, snare and hats will reach the core of what it is to be a drummer in half the time of the rich kid with the worlds largest drum kit."
I apply this lesson to almost anything creative that I do. Obviously, the more tools you have, the better equipped you are to do a good job. However, sometimes limitations are the best creative tools you can ask for.
It is for this reason that I think indie games will always have the upper hand in making a truly remarkable gaming experience.
He also had some really great analogies about 'creative decisions in a large democracy' that seem quite relevant here too.
"A drummer with only a kick, snare and hats will reach the core of what it is to be a drummer in half the time of the rich kid with the worlds largest drum kit."
I apply this lesson to almost anything creative that I do. Obviously, the more tools you have, the better equipped you are to do a good job. However, sometimes limitations are the best creative tools you can ask for.
It is for this reason that I think indie games will always have the upper hand in making a truly remarkable gaming experience.
He also had some really great analogies about 'creative decisions in a large democracy' that seem quite relevant here too.
That is a rather amusing happenstance of language, isn't it? Niche can refer to the same places where I am from. Our definition of niche goes along the lines of any small place or group of people. In my usage there you could substitute the word "diversity" and it would still work, but I like the irony you pointed out! It works nicely with my point, so thanks for sharing that interesting tidbit.roski said:
Broadly, those indies are ruining things, but that's just the result of the market cycle at work.
The largest firms are being punished for their bloated costs and complacency, and as a general rule, the first firms to leave when competition intensifies are those with the highest costs.
Eventually, at least some of those upstart indie developers will succeed consistently enough to grow bigger.
And in time, will replace the current old guard. It happens, albeit slowly. The only way bloated companies ever avoid that fate is if they manage to install themselves into positions of power and exert monopolistic powers. In essence, force the market to adapt to them rather than how it's supposed to be.
(Hollywood has gone in cycles, but even then many of their biggest producers survive only by employing some very dirty anti-competitive practices...Wanna act? Better get that SAG card ready!)
While graphical fidelity is going to cost a fair penny to make feasible, it's mainly the rising cost of marketing that's causing AAA costs to inflate out of control.
As video games have become increasingly visible in the media market, the cost of advertising has increased accordingly. (I'm pretty sure other big media producers don't like it when games occupy "their" customer's spare time. They're going to charge a premium for advertisement that isn't in their empires.)
They shitcan their developers for not producing higher profit margins, yet the Xbone, sans games is projected to produce absolutely TINY profit margins per unit sold.
So, going back to your question...if their games and hardware is profitable So, the only explanation for how they keep hemorrhaging money must be insane operating costs and R&D.
Nothing else makes sense.
The largest firms are being punished for their bloated costs and complacency, and as a general rule, the first firms to leave when competition intensifies are those with the highest costs.
Eventually, at least some of those upstart indie developers will succeed consistently enough to grow bigger.
And in time, will replace the current old guard. It happens, albeit slowly. The only way bloated companies ever avoid that fate is if they manage to install themselves into positions of power and exert monopolistic powers. In essence, force the market to adapt to them rather than how it's supposed to be.
(Hollywood has gone in cycles, but even then many of their biggest producers survive only by employing some very dirty anti-competitive practices...Wanna act? Better get that SAG card ready!)
While graphical fidelity is going to cost a fair penny to make feasible, it's mainly the rising cost of marketing that's causing AAA costs to inflate out of control.
As video games have become increasingly visible in the media market, the cost of advertising has increased accordingly. (I'm pretty sure other big media producers don't like it when games occupy "their" customer's spare time. They're going to charge a premium for advertisement that isn't in their empires.)
That's a nasty question I was asking back when Microsoft was pitching the Xbone as an "All in One" system. To the point where people suggested that games did not matter. While the Xbone technically turns a profit, this doesn't fit into Microsoft's business model at all.reiniat said:
They shitcan their developers for not producing higher profit margins, yet the Xbone, sans games is projected to produce absolutely TINY profit margins per unit sold.
So, going back to your question...if their games and hardware is profitable So, the only explanation for how they keep hemorrhaging money must be insane operating costs and R&D.
Nothing else makes sense.
Developing the same game, that is developing a gen 7 game on a gen 8 system, would be cheaper in principle. It is possible that the initial wave of games for the 8th gen would cost more because the studio's are not setup for the 8th gen, but that shouldn't be that much. Maybe a little more expensive to start with and then the cost should drop significantly over the next few years.Hoplon said:
The problem is that they are not making 7th gen games, they are making 8th gen games. Maxing out the hardware is extremely costly. And that is the problem. Developing models, textures, AI, etc that take full advantage of what they have for every single game is financially impossible.
Developing for the hardware is not expensive. Making an 8th gen game is expensive. This is what AAA developers don't seem to get. They have it backwards.
And this is what low budget indie's are taking advantage of. They are making 3rd-5th gen games on 8th gen hardware. It is extremely easy (by game making standards) and stupidly cheap. Because they basically never have to worry about processing power and the like they can instead just make great games.
Yes but what i am getting at is the tech for "gen 8" games has existed for about 4 years for the PC, they shouldn't have to develop any new tech at all since these consoles cannot do anything PC doesn't already do better, faster, more of.DrOswald said:
I don't see there all this expense is coming from. Decent texture resolutions can't be that much more expensive.
It was true about six years ago, some people are still thumping the drum like its true and a current issue though. After the console got a decent install base and Don Mattrick became CEO it started making huge profits.reiniat said:While im inclined to think that MS doesnt actually lose money with the Xbox division, such idea is more than just a myth, it was started by an analyst, Rick Sherlund. But i dont know about analysts and stock value stuff, so the only thing thats clear to me here is that im not buying an Xboner, and everything else is smoke and mirrorsJ Tyran said:
I don't even..... what?Hoplon said:
OT: Agreed. Not only are they cheaper, they also seem to be leading in the innovation department. Ya there's piles and piles of shit to deal with but there are a lot of gems in Indie gaming that are much more creative than any big budget games.
Well, the tech has existed but 8th gen games have not been made. This is because 7th gen was still the standard. Take Tomb Raider for example. This was a game that existed in an environment in which 8th gen tech existed but it absolutely had to run on 7th gen tech. And because almost all AAA developers develop for console first virtually all games needed to run on 7th gen tech.Hoplon said:
8th gen tech has existed for years on PC but it was never being maxed out. But now that the actual 8th gen has come along console developers feel the need to max out the hardware best they can. And maxing out the hardware is expensive.
It's not just texture maps, it is inventing new lighting engines, creating new character models, creating larger or more detailed environments. It is creating new AI and integrating social features and tons of other little things that add up to be a whole lot of things. And as things get more and more complex the code gets less and less efficient so you have to spend exponentially more time (and therefore money) optimizing it.
And then it is paying not only for the developers to make the game but for them to sit in meetings where they discuss with each other decisions about the game. A 10 man team can make a decision in minutes that will take a 100 man team hours, and even then no one is sure what is going on exactly. And then you have to pay for more managers and team managers and a head manager to manager the managers.
Especially when the lack of backwards compatibility is attributed to the new PC architecture.Hoplon said:
If we start talking about this gen no they are not in profit yet... but its the start of a new generation of devices and no-ones in profit yet. The original discussion was about the 360 never making profit, luckily for both Sony and Microsoft both consoles are doing well with record breaking sales with the PS4 being in the clear lead in console sale.reiniat said:This is from november 2013;J Tyran said:It was true about six years ago, some people are still thumping the drum like its true and a current issue though. After the console got a decent install base and Don Mattrick became CEO it started making huge profits.reiniat said:J Tyran said:
[link]http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2013/11/25/microsoft-xboxs-1b-plus-loss-makes-it-a-sale-candidate-says-nomura/[/link]
Youre talking as if we still were in the golden years of the 7th gen...
That's the problem when you try to be ironic in the internet. But, yeah, being ironic in the title of an article is somewhat misleading, unless you're in a parody site.Cat Cloud said:
As a backer I can confirm this. It is a fairness price.Smilomaniac said:
Smile- I agree on the kickstarter angle. Some of the best "Indies" of late are actually kickstarter games. Looking forward to getting wasteland 2, torment and Pillars of Eternity. Enjoying Broken Age and Banner Saga right now!
I think the whole indie thing is blown out of proportion. i think most of the so called indie games are pretty much crap. there are a few good ones every year. I liked papers please, brothers and gone home a lot, but there were a few other indie games i simply hated. this is also true of many of the AAA games out there. There are a couple of things a would love to verify.
1. this whole 8-10 X development cost story. it simply doesn't add up. the graphical upgrade from this last gen to this gen is incremental and there are PC devs who have been using these same tools for a good 5 years now.
2. I would like some sales numbers on indie games. yes, minecraft has sold a couple of million copies, but what about the rest
1. this whole 8-10 X development cost story. it simply doesn't add up. the graphical upgrade from this last gen to this gen is incremental and there are PC devs who have been using these same tools for a good 5 years now.
2. I would like some sales numbers on indie games. yes, minecraft has sold a couple of million copies, but what about the rest