Why Indie Games Are Our Saviours

[mindcycle]

Obviously, it's possible. Small developers can't afford the massive development time or investment costs and as a result need to have some sort of other selling point to get people to buy their games, such as a much lower price and/or additional gameplay gimmick. On the flip side, MW2 didn't need to reinvent the wheel to bring in $300 million and they would have been stupid to try.

The advertising budget for MW2 was twice as much (if not more) than the development costs and is the main reason it brought in the profits it did. When it's common for advertising budgets to outweigh development costs by double or triple, you know there is a problem.

IMO the main issue is that publishers and developers alike are motivated by one thing, and that's profits. They know the formula works so they stick with it and innovation (beyond small tweaks) goes out the window. So we're more likely to see the same core gameplay elements used over and over again. Which to some may be fine and dandy, but makes me question why I just forked over $50 for a game that starts to bore me after an hour. I get that been there done that feeling with a lot of the major releases coming out nowadays.

What I disagree with is the starting assumption that the PC industry needs indie developers to "save us" from more expensively produced products, anymore than we all need knock-off cereal brands to "save us" from Cheerios. We're all better off for having both because of the added competition and choices that presents us as consumers, but there's no hero here.

I don't necessarily think they're going the "save us", but I do think that if we support the indie games we like it's more likely that we'll see a larger amount of unique gameplay elements being thrown around. And that means more choices in games, even from the big guys, which is good for everyone.

IMHO, save for a few titles, gameplay in most mainstream games has become stagnant and simplified to the point of no longer being fun. I personally play games for the challenge, but when that challenge is dumbed down and simplified to appeal to the masses it feels more like i'm just going through the motions then actually playing and enjoying something.

Really, the message here is to give indie games a chance and support the ones you like. Doing so can benefit everyone.

 

[JoshGuru7]

The advertising budget for MW2 was twice as much (if not more) than the development costs and is the main reason it brought in the profits it did. When it's common for advertising budgets to outweigh development costs by double or triple, you know there is a problem.

The advertising budget ($200 million) was four times larger than the development budget ($50 million) but I don't see why you think that's a problem. So long as transactions remain mutually agreed upon then they are also mutually beneficial and increased sales means increased benefit regardless of why the sales were increased. They knew they had a sure-fire hit, promoted the hell out of it, and now they're rolling in cash. Why does that bother you as a consumer? I would love to see more developers risk $200 million on the quality of their product.

IMO the main issue is that publishers and developers alike are motivated by one thing, and that's profits.

I don't think we'll be able to agree on this issue if you think the existence of profit is the problem. Profits are clearly the saving grace here and why the system works as well as it does. They are what force the examples I listed previously to innovate in the first place. Assassin's Creed 2 is improved far beyond small tweaks because the developers knew they were going to be up against this very issue and consumers wouldn't have re-purchased Assassins Creed 1. Further, the desire for profit is what forces indie developers to innovate in the first place as they can't contend with the costlier value added stuff provided by big development houses.

Really, the message here is to give indie games a chance and support the ones you like. Doing so can benefit everyone.

Purchasing any sort of product will encourage producers to continue selling that product and similar products. This applies to games of any type and thus "everyone" already exhibits spending patterns that directly benefit "everyone". What I think you really mean to say is that if other people change their spending habits to be more like you, it will benefit them if they share your preferences (which they should, right?). I don't fault the intention, I just think there's a lot of elitism built into the sentiment that the population at large would be better off if there were less of the titles that they liked and more indie titles instead.

 

[mindcycle]

Why does that bother you as a consumer? I would love to see more developers risk $200 million on the quality of their product.

I don't think we'll be able to agree on this issue if you think the existence of profit is the problem.

Game companies making profits doesn't bother me in the slightest. In your first post you mentioned that indie developers need alternate selling points because they don't have massive development/investment money available like MW2 and other big budget games have. And that MW2 made $300 million and that it would have been stupid to try to reinvent the wheel. I then pointed out the main reason they made that massive of a profit was due to their massive advertising campaign. I was stating the problems I see with advertising budgets that far exceed development costs. IMO, it simply stresses the point that innovation is secondary to profit.

What I think you really mean to say is that if other people change their spending habits to be more like you, it will benefit them if they share your preferences (which they should, right?). I don't fault the intention, I just think there's a lot of elitism built into the sentiment that the population at large would be better off if there were less of the titles that they liked and more indie titles instead.

I think you completely missed the point I was trying to make. I'm not attempting to be an elitist but instead trying to point out the fact that there are still developers interested in taking a risk on truly innovative game ideas. They may take some searching to find since they aren't crammed down your throat at every turn, but they are out there. Believe it or not, there are gamers out there, like me, who are bored by the carbon copy releases that seem to be flooding the market right now. That is just my opinion but I do feel that way a lot of the time while playing some of the more recent big budget games.

A lot of people may not think about indie games when they look for a new release to pick up so hopefully posting that article will help influence a few people to look in that direction. And if it doesn't, that's fine. I also enjoy discussion on the topic in general because I love PC gaming and would hate to see innovation come to a standstill while the only thing on the horizon to look forward to is shoddy console ports.

 

[JoshGuru7]

I then pointed out the main reason they made that massive of a profit was due to their massive advertising campaign. I was stating the problems I see with advertising budgets that far exceed development costs. IMO, it simply stresses the point that innovation is secondary to profit.

I don't want to belabor this side issue but advertising is a valuable service to the consumer as well as the developer even though it probably doesn't feel like it. The value of advertising to the economy is the marginal benefit for each additional sale that would otherwise not have occured to both parties. The strategy would have backfired enormously on MW2 if their product was not well received (Waterworld) because they had not done enough to distinguish it from MW1.

Believe it or not, there are gamers out there, like me, who are bored by the carbon copy releases that seem to be flooding the market right now. That is just my opinion but I do feel that way a lot of the time while playing some of the more recent big budget games.

I understand your argument although I would disagree for the most point, but I'm not quibbling about how interesting the big release titles have been lately. As a matter of fact, I think we both would be happy to hear that Sims 5 would be replaced by a time-travel puzzle RPG action shooter pirate comedy. The Sims enthusiasts would be less excited by this, however, and our preferences would make them worse off despite what we think they "should" enjoy.

At this very moment, there is an enormously complex spiderweb of demand preferences surrounding each PC title constructed of competing ideals such as innovation, accessibility, gameplay, story, graphics, system requirements, and such. The current balance is dependent on the demand that both indie and mainstream publishers forecast based on what consumers are voting with their wallets on. Moving this balance in any particular direction may benefit some people but will do so at the expense of others and certainly isn't better for everybody. That's why I'm very hesistant to say that indie gaming is the savior of anything other than the subset of gamers who prefer indie games.

 

[mindcycle]

I understand your argument although I would disagree for the most point, but I'm not quibbling about how interesting the big release titles have been lately. As a matter of fact, I think we both would be happy to hear that Sims 5 would be replaced by a time-travel puzzle RPG action shooter pirate comedy. The Sims enthusiasts would be less excited by this, however, and our preferences would make them worse off despite what we think they "should" enjoy.

That's where I think you're still misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that the Sims or any other large franchise should go away. There is certainly a large fan base out there who enjoy those titles and don't care about anything new or innovative. Those flagship series are often the ones that keep publishers in business. At the end of the day the fans get what they want and the publishers stay in business, so it's a good thing for all those involved.

What i'm attempting to point out is that for those of us who are tired of the trends and are bored by the rehashed and/or dumbed down recent titles, there is still the indie alternative. While indie titles aren't for everyone I do think that it's important to remember that they do exist. Even I will get caught up in the marketing hype from the latest sequel only to be disappointed later with the final product. Of course this isn't always the case as there are some newer releases that are pretty damn good, some of which you pointed out in a a previous post. But IMO, disappointing "console ports" seems to be the current trend in PC gaming nowadays.

I think we are both on the same page generally speaking. I just wanted to clarify my position as i'm totally for both sides. I just think that the days of true large budget innovation is coming to and end, and that's why we as gamers should start looking towards indie games if "new and different" is something we value in our games.