Two Million Sales to Freedom

[Shinsei-J]

A horrible business decision that risks all the material goods they've worked for, for the ability to do what they feel should be done.
Now that takes pride, and now I have huge respect for these guys.

If they hadn't done this, they would probably have enough money to start their next project with more freedom, while now they'll probably be forced to search for investors again. It's not just a bad business decision, they probably harmed their next project, too, just for fear of what could happen to their game... After it was already done. So it's a matter of ownership, they felt that nobody should profit from their work, even if it cost them a lot of money.

Or maybe I still don't understand what's going on, since the article is obscure, and nobody answered my previous post about how this thing exactly worked.

That's it.
I don't know there current financial state but breaking even's ok for not making anything in years and still paying those who are currently making something, especially after buying back a company. So say they get some good sales from the Limbo SE along with lasting sales of the regular edition and this new game has 1 to 2 years left on development, they could still have enough to do it.
My guess is it's a gamble for them, they could remain completely independent or they might have to sell some again.
If it's a close shave and they don't sell and then the new game doesn't sell the company may flop but this is still the risk they are willing to take to have their work free from the world of corruption that's money. As I said it sounds like a matter of pride to me.
The ideal for all developers is to make art and art is hard to make in a corporate environment and I respect them for striving for that.

I'm just gonna say I have no idea of the company outside of this article, this is just my interpretation and logical deduction from my knowledge.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

"I've never liked the idea of business people being in control of creative decisions, and I firmly believe that money and creativity shouldn't be mixed. Business people always want to measure progress but the fact is creativity cannot be measured."

Eaaarrghh.

That's a nice notion and all, but a bit of a silly one. If the creativity costs money then that bright, fluffy, angelic creativity is going to end up mixing with the sleazy, greasy, quantifiable money no matter what.

Still, I'm curious to see what they come out with next. Limbo was pretty cool.

I had to really try hard to read on after the whole "deal with the devil" bit. Urgh. I, like a lot of people, think the indie scene is a force for good in the wider industry, but dear God some of the people who work in it could use a good slap sometimes, having apparently got it into their heads that what they do is more than just a force for good, but the be all and end all of the industry *coughJohnathonBlowcough*.

Speaking as someone who want a career in 'The Arts', it really annoys me when people I want to be able to look up to display such bare-faced pretentiousness and stupidity. You can't separate business from art. You shouldn't separate business from art, because without business there is no art. A lot of the most shining examples of artistic expression throughout history that we still praise to this day, such as the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, only got made because somebody commissioned them, and you can bet your bottom dollar that whoever did always kept a close eye on their sizable investment. We may praise the efforts of individuals like Michelangelo today, and rightly so, but what a lot of today's artists seem too immature to accept is that the force that both sustained and shaped their work was money.

The best results happen when both sides, creators and investors, are prepared to give each-other just a little bit of trust. We need more investors who, yes, want to make a profit, but also care about the larger industry and the specific product being made, and as such are not averse to taking risks in order to be part of something truly meaningful, as well as profitable. We also need more artists who realise that what they do is entertainment, and that there's nothing ugly about that. People who have big ideas, but are not so arrogant that they need everything to be done their way. People who believe that so long as the finished product conforms an acceptable degree to what they had first envisioned, and is at least capable of connecting with its intended audience, then it was a worthwhile undertaking, even if it didn't turn out 100% how they would have wanted.

 

[Basement Cat]

I'm glad for them. It must be a personal hell to produce such a successful game that made millions only to find yourself beset on all sides by vultures and lawyers.

Granted they made Faust's deal, in a way.

But unlike Faust THEY'RE FREE!!!

GO TEAM PLAYDEAD!!!

P.S.: Am I the only one who copied the article's picture?

 

[SecondPrize]

Am I the only one who didn't really like Limbo that much?

Anyway I'm sure with the recent flood of Kickstarter successes, these guys won't need to worry about funding.

I'm with you. I'm not a big fan of advancement through repetition on a good day, but with Limbo it felt like the game was laughing in my face with every death. And no, I don't think black dangers placed on a black ground in front of a black background is clever trap design.

 

[antipunt]

"True" artists are inspired, prideful, and somewhat masochistic (AKA 'retarded' to the average person, especially fiscally). Case in point all those famous painters/artists/musicians/etc. that basically lived in poverty. It's kind of sad really, the artistic temperament. A good businessman thrives off exploitation of these people. But then again, they kind of 'ask for it'

 

[Basement Cat]

"True" artists are inspired, prideful, and somewhat masochistic (AKA 'retarded' to the average person, especially fiscally). Case in point all those famous painters/artists/musicians/etc. that basically lived in poverty. It's kind of sad really, the artistic temperament. A good businessman thrives off exploitation of these people. But then again, they kind of 'ask for it'

Many of them DO ask for it.

I remember a girl in high school who was in love with the romantic image of being a 'Starving Artist' for the longest time: The dedicated but misunderstood artist who stayed devoted to his/her work no matter the lack of positive reception from others.

She eventually grew out of it, largely due to a older mutual friend of ours who repeatedly emphasized to her that 'Starving Artists" starve...as in THEY GO HUNGRY!!!

She wasn't stupid or silly. She was just young.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

Investors are parasites who will suck the life, joy, and purpose out of any project. Find a way to self fund or do without. Distil the essence of your game down to the fundamental element of joy and build around that. Innovation is free, assets are expensive.

Many great things have been produced with the only investment being the time and passion of the creators.

 

[Raioken18]

It's a nice view, but yeah I'd have to agree that it's a little naive.

As an Aussie I always root for the underdog, in this case indie game devs, but...
If you did go out of control with the creative side you may run the risk of sending your own company under. Investors are usually the leash that kicks them into gear. It's not always a positive thing but that's just how it works.

 

[Callate]

I don't know; I think it's one thing to want to trade in a creative people's products, and another to want to bank on their reputations- which is kind of what you're doing when you decide, as a financier, to sell out of an otherwise successful business. If doing so risks putting those creative people in a position where their freedom is significantly curtailed, it's kind of a "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs" situation.

In any case, I'd argue they're still better off for having a very well-received game they can point to when asked what they're capable of. If we ended up seeing them on Kickstarter or the like, worse things have certainly happened.

I only recently got to play Limbo, through the Humble Indie Bundle, and I was quite impressed.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Stay awesome Playdead, you may end up see me buying one of your games in the future.

 

[Wolf Hagen]

First double fine, then Mojang, now Playdead...

Studios start to grasp the principle of liberation again, instead of gettin under the clingy safe wings of publishers.

 

[veloper]

In their shoes I would have sold the Limbo IP for the big bucks and then create a new IP for myself.
True creativity doesn't like sequels anyway.

Failing that, I would have gone with the investors and sold the company, then resign and form a new company. Again you lose one single IP and you gain the money to be truly free to create what you want. Limbo was cute, but I have no interest in a Limbo 2.
A game company name is only worth the IP it owns. The only true value here is in the skilled developers and they are not owned. So sell.

 

[SnowBurst]

Limbo was revolutionary tbh, Not my kind of game but still made enough of an impact for people to think of Limbo instantly when thinking of indie games. Good to see they arnt sellouts and are continuing on.

 

[TheKaduflyerSystem]

Excellent, kick the feet out from under the publishers to see them suffer!

But really, independence is great and should be encouraged, publishers lack the drive of developers and often refuse to take risks.

 

[CarlsonAndPeeters]

Great article, gave me even more respect for Playdead. However, did anyone else keep thinking "Adam Jensen founded Playdead?" while reading this piece?

 

[veloper]

I can't help but feel sorry for them despite them seeing this as a sort of success. What happens when their next project has the same fate and the next? The investors will make profits off of them and they will just walk away broke every time. Even worse is if they ever have a flop game in terms of sales this will likely doom them.

I am totally for art before profits but I never want to see anyone who made such a beautiful game to ever struggle to put food on the table.

In their shoes I would have sold the Limbo IP for the big bucks and then create a new IP for myself.
True creativity doesn't like sequels anyway.

Failing that, I would have gone with the investors and sold the company, then resign and form a new company. Again you lose one single IP and you gain the money to be truly free to create what you want. Limbo was cute, but I have no interest in a Limbo 2.
A game company name is only worth the IP it owns. The only true value here is in the skilled developers and they are not owned. So sell.

This is not always possible. If you sold to a publisher you have to be aware of all their demands this could include X years working for them or even a no compete clause meaning they couldn't make anything else for a long period of time.

I doubt someone could slip a clause like that in a hostile takeover, but there may always be complications to watch out for.
I'm asuming here that the 3rd party investors together had the majority of shares and they intented to sell them, to a big publisher. This doesn't change your contract of employment. Ofcourse they would have to offer to sell theirs to the other shareholders(the founders in this case) first, because it's not a publicly traded company, which is what the investors did.

It doesn't matter in any case. I just don't see how this conclusion is in any way more laudable than just picking the fruits of your labour and moving on.
The scorn would only fall on the publisher who tries to make a quick buck out of the rushed sequel.

 

[n00beffect]

BAMF's, pure BAMF's! Good on them, I firmly stand behind what they did, and I'd have probably done the exact same thing were I in their position (or at least I'd have tried it). Oh and this quote:

"I've never liked the idea of business people being in control of creative decisions, and I firmly believe that money and creativity shouldn't be mixed. Business people always want to measure progress but the fact is creativity cannot be measured."

Kicks ass!

 

[RicoADF]

I always wonderded what made games so expensive to make. their are tons of free engines that you can use, and everything else can be made without money, I think.

The tools to make said game (photoshop, 3dsmax etc) cost money, alot, and no you can't get away with using illegal copies as its when your making money that you'll be targeted for pirating these things.

Also, while in a perfect world they'd be able to devote their lives to making their beloved games, in reality while their making the game they need money to pay bills, eat, drive cars etc, you know stuff to live. So either they need other jobs to cover the costs (and thus take time away from developing the game) or find financial backing to cover the costs hoping the game will pay itself off, which in this case it has.

 

[I.Muir]

Good for them

 

[Mike Kayatta]

Great article, gave me even more respect for Playdead. However, did anyone else keep thinking "Adam Jensen founded Playdead?" while reading this piece?

Thanks!

(Also ... I was thinking that the whole time I was doing the interview.)

Honestly, no matter how many times I read or hear Arnt's name, my mind either goes to Adam Jensen or Susan Arendt.