Geek Bravado

The blown hard arrogance of Parallax Abstraction.

Tag Archives: indie games

Steam’s Flickering Greenlight

1 Comment Posted by on February 4, 2013

I’m a huge fan of both Valve and Steam. I think Gabe Newell and many of the other employees at the company are some of the smartest in gaming and that almost every segment of this industry (and many others for that matter) can learn some valuable lessons from how they do business. That said, like anyone, they aren’t perfect. I’ve taken the piss out of them for their hypocrisy towards Windows 8 but while that’s still very true and relevant, it’s minor in the grand scheme of things. What I’m going to take this piss out of this time around is their Greenlight system, a fantastic idea that I think Valve is messing up and eroding good will from with double standards and creating an uneven playing field.

For those unfamiliar, Valve operates as a company with no titles or staff hierarchy. Boiled down to basics, no one can force you to do one particular job there. The story goes that the team at the company who handles submissions and approvals for new games on Steam was a small group that was overwhelmed with demand from developers and publishers. They didn’t want to grow the team too large for fear of diluting the work they were doing so someone invented Greenlight. The idea was to democratise indie games submissions to the site. Developers and publishers with a track record and relationships with the company would still go through the normal approval process but others who didn’t have this means would submit their projects to Greenlight, each submission getting a place for videos, screenshots and discussion. Almost like a Kickstarter for Steam approval, members of the community would vote on the games they liked and the ones that achieved an undisclosed number of votes would get approved and gain entry into a batch of 10 titles per month admitted onto the service.

It all sounds pretty cool but in a very non-Valve like fashion, the service has had many problems since launch and its value to many players is starting to be questioned.

First, it launched with the ability to both vote for and against a game, except no one understood what the negative votes meant. It also launched with no fee for developers which makes sense on paper but which quickly led to a torrent of spam and scam projects. Both of these were quickly corrected, the downvote function was removed and a $100 submission fee (donated in full to Child’s Play) was instituted within days. What has not yet been addressed is why Valve can arbitrarily decide that existing Steam partners need to be pushed back down to Greenlight. Or why certain games which are clearly of inferior quality and value to consumers can sail right through the service’s internal approval process while better titles from established developers (some of which are already in release on other platforms) set in Greenlight limbo indefinitely. This isn’t good for Steam and it certainly isn’t good for gamers.

To demonstrate the first example, I offer up Wadjet Eye Games’ Promordia. Wadjet Eye publishes point and click adventure games made in a very old school, 16-bitish graphics style. A super tight niche but one they’ve thrived in. I’ve played several of their games and enjoyed them. They also had a publisher agreement for Steam and had a number of titles released through there already. When they submitted Primordia for approval, they were told by Valve that the title “seemed like a Greenlight project”. Why? No one appears to know as no explanation was provided. Wadjet Eye had a relationship with Valve, several titles on Steam and presumably had made a number of sales, thus making both themselves and Valve money. Yet, the Valve team decided to kick Primordia back down to Greenlight for some reason. Thankfully, Wadjet Eye’s community may be small but they are very devoted so when Dave Gilbert asked his fans to go vote for the game, they immediately showed up and got it the required number within a day. Some would say this shows that the system works but to me, it shows that its unbalanced and easily rigged. I think Wadjet Eye makes great games and think Primordia deserves a place on Steam but it should have gotten that without Greenlight. Since Valve made them go there, they easily utilised an existing fan base to grab a slot in a group of 10 that could have–should have–been given to another indie title from someone else. That’s not fair to anyone.

The greater threat to Greenlight’s relevance as a community measurement of game quality is also what titles Valve does let through their internal processes without forcing them to undergo a vote. For this, I offer up Revelations 2012 and The War Z. The reason I link to TotalBiscuit videos of them will become apparent after you watch a few minutes of both. These games are without question, scam products. They were made by developers who wanted to jump on a craze and grab a quick buck from gullible, ignorant gamers for the least amount of development investment possible. They’re broken, terribly designed, bad games in every respect and yet, both sailed right through Valve’s approval process and were allowed on Steam. Revelations 2012 actually used Valve’s Source which is even grosser because apparently paying to license their now dated engine gives you guaranteed access to a coveted Steam slot, regardless of whether the game is of good quality or not. After community outrage over The War Z (which released in an incomplete state), Valve pulled that title and offered refunds to any who wanted them. Revelations 2012 is still available for purchase however. Those are only two examples but there are many more games of similarly questionable quality on Steam, all given the stamp of approval by Valve’s team.

Make no mistake, these games being on Steam after having to undergo an approval is an endorsement from Valve that they meet a certain minimum standard of quality. Sure, taste is subjective and it’s not Valve’s job to determine that but both of these games are flat out broken in many respects and offering them for sale turns a blind eye to that. Would these games have made it through a Greenlight vote? It’s possible they would have but at least in that case, the community would have said they wanted them. By approving them without Greenlight, Valve indicated they thought the games measured up and that’s not right. Meanwhile, titles like The Pinball Arcade and Incredipede have languished in Greenlight limbo for months now and will likely never get approved. These are titles that are already on sale and doing well both critically and commercially in other places, yet they remain unavailable on Steam while Revelations 2012 and many other piles of hot garbage are still there for purchase. One could argue that there clearly isn’t enough community interest since neither game was greenlit. There’s merit to that but only if the playing field is level.

I love the idea of Greenlight. Giving the power to the people to determine what games they want to see is a great thing and something that few others but Valve could manage to make work at all. However, if Valve are going to let some titles through while others are forced into Greenlight without an explanation, the playing field is not level and that removes a substantial amount of the value to the community. There’s a fine line to balance here but in my opinion, it’s also not hard. If you have previously put out a game on Steam, released it in a good functional condition and supported it, I don’t think you should necessarily have to go through Greenlight for every future title you release. But I also don’t think you should be allowed to jump the line simply because you licensed Source or because you apparently knew the right people to call to make sure you could get immediate approval, even if your game is clearly unfinished. This can all be easily resolved with clear internal policies that lay out the criteria and apply it universally. Established indies like Wadjet Eye wouldn’t be forced to Greenlight certain future games and scam artists like Dark Artz Entertainment would be forced to justify their endeavours, regardless of their engine choice. Such strict policies are somewhat contrary to the way Valve’s flat corporate structure operates though and I’m not sure how you deal with that.

Greenlight is a great thing and has great potential to offer PC gamers but every new scam title that skips it and every established indie that gets stuck in it further diminishes the community’s view of it and thus, its relevance. After some initial tweaks, Valve has done little to change Greenlight’s policies, indicating to me that they’ve either lost interest or think all is tickety boo. It isn’t and some changes are needed soon if they want to keep momentum going. Make the rules clearer, make them universal and make sure everyone has an equal chance to complete. Until then, Greenlight is better as an idea than a practice.

Business, Video Games , , , ,

Meet the new hotness, same as the old hotness

4 Comments Posted by on July 24, 2012

Remember when pretty much everyone in the games press and a good chunk of the industry said PC gaming was dead? Man, that seems like it happened so recently. That’s probably because it did. Only a year or two ago, you couldn’t look at a non-PC enthusiast site without seeing almost everyone condemning the platform as corpsified and one that would always play second fiddle to consoles in the home, saddled with half-assed ports of games that were designed for controllers and 720p first. Even with the huge rise of mobile and indie development, everyone said there just wasn’t a case for gaming on computers anymore. The usual bevy of nonsense excuses was offered: Piracy’s out of control! A computer than can run games is too expensive! PC gaming’s too complicated!

Then some time in 2011, the sentiment almost universally shifted and in the last couple of months, this seems to be the increasingly common viewpoint.

As a life-long PC gamer first and someone who also supports computers for a living, I’ve always thought similarly to Jim Sterling. I’ve owned every console since the PS2 and have a huge library of console games. I don’t dislike consoles at all, far from it. However, especially in recent years, the continued excuses I hear about why PC gaming can never be mainstream I always believed to be crap. Piracy is a huge problem on every platform from Xbox 360 to iOS, it’s just whined about more on PC. Virtually any computer you buy now can run games to some degree and even something as low as $500 can run AAA stuff decently if you don’t care about having all the settings maxed. Most reasonably equipped PCs can easily be plugged into a TV if you want to game on the couch and almost every new game has native controller support. And with the lessening frequency of driver updates and well as drivers, games and operating systems that keep themselves current automatically, it’s never been easier to be a PC gamer. I could sit my girlfriend or my Mom down with a new PC with Steam on it, say “Buy, install and play something.” and neither of them would have any harder a time doing that than they would putting a game into a console. Sterling also touches on how digital distribution means the actual games are almost always cheaper now as well. The standby excuses no longer apply and are just that, excuses.

Meanwhile, consoles have paid online services that are free on PC. Patching also became possible this generation which has given rise to the “release now, patch later” mentality that the absence of used to be their greatest strength. This is backed up with manufacturer “certification processes” that are supposed to ensure you get quality in the box. However, especially of late, we’ve heard many developers (especially smaller indies) complaining about how bureaucratic and slow they are and how more and more are finding the process not worth it. Even with this, we still get numerous games like say, every Bethesda release that are often barely playable at launch or the strange and continuing problem of most Xbox Live Arcade titles shipping broken online play. When you combine this with both Microsoft and Sony making games more and more secondary and trying to turn their machines into all-in-one living room devices, I think Sterling’s bang on when he says that consoles are simply becoming closed, less powerful and increasingly less friendly PCs.

Most indie developers have said that they both endured fewer headaches and made more money by releasing to Steam on PC or even the App Store than on any console service. Services like that allow you to create and release a game entirely on your own whereas Xbox Live Arcade requires that you have a publisher who cuts into your profits. Then there’s retail games where self-publishing hasn’t been a realistic option for over a decade. You can patch and update your game with ease and as often as you want on PC without penalty and contrary to the console certification philosophy, PC games that are broken at launch are no more or less common. In other words, PC not only has by far the largest number of potential players in the world, it’s the easiest platform to develop and maintain your game for.

Here’s the thing though: That’s been the case on PC for the better part of a decade now and it was the case throughout most of this time when people declared PC gaming dead. What amazes me is not only that the pendulum has swung back but that it’s done so with such speed that the pendulum’s practically warped by the G-force. The PC always does get a bit of a resurgence as a console cycle ends and given that this cycle has gone on way too long, a certain amount of that is expected. This time seems different though, with many developers big and small now speaking out against how frustrating the consoles are to work with and how many who have previously released on them aren’t going to bother anymore. Many say that between PC and mobile platforms, consoles are increasingly becoming irrelevant and that the next generation may be the last of them, at least in their current form. I don’t know if that’s true but I do know that PC and mobile are raising the bar of value expectations both from developers and consumers and if the consoles want to continue to have the great success they’ve attained, the large companies in charge of them need to stop slogging through the mud and learn to be agile and less controlling.

What I’ve really learned throughout watching this huge and sudden paradigm shift is just how increasingly irrelevant and frankly useless the enthusiast press is becoming. The same people who were declaring the PC dead with certainty only a couple of years ago are now cheering it as the killer of consoles. These are the same people who said the DS and Wii were gimmicky and would never take off and that people would never want to play games on a mobile phone and that PC gaming was always going to be a niche for wealthy nerds. PC gaming never went anywhere and was never close to dead but people believed it because the enthusiast press said so. I’ve come to realise in recent months that the segment is really just an inter-feeding echo chamber based on opinions people pull out of thin air without any real empirical evidence. Time and time again, the enthusiast press proves itself to be pretty useless at understanding trends and what consumers actually want, only at taking wild guesses and stating them as fact. It frustrates me to see their word so often taken as law among gamers, even when it constantly flip-flops and is proven wrong by others who remain ignored. I don’t know how one goes about fixing this problem but I’ve been granularly moving further and further away from this segment of game coverage in the last couple of years and I think if they aren’t careful, a lot of other people are going to as well. If when the next Xbox and PlayStation come out, we start seeing coverage once again swinging back to the PC being irrelevant, I think perhaps it’s their own relevance they should check.

I’ve always been a PC gamer first and will continue to be, even though I will likely be all three new consoles when they arrive. I do wonder what the future is going to hold in this regard but the important thing to remember is that throughout the entire history of gaming (including one major crash), playing games on computers has always endured and grown, no matter what has happened to every other segment. I think consoles are important for growing the gaming audience but if the future is in fact one where open, expandable, decentralised platforms can once again be dominant, I think that’s ultimately good for everyone. Regardless of where you choose to do your gaming, make sure you make your choice because it’s where you prefer to be, not because it’s where the increasingly irrelevant press tells you to be.

Business, Computers, Coverage, Predictions, Technology, Video Games , , , , ,

In the interests of disclosure: I’ve downgraded my OUYA pledge for unrelated reasons

1 Comment Posted by on July 17, 2012

Not being a journalist, this is not actually required of me but since I’ve been sticking up for the OUYA project against what I feel is some undeserved and hypocritical cynicism, I feel it’s important to be honest about this.

I’ve downgraded from the $95 OUYA Kickstarter tier to the $10 tier that just allows me to reserve a name on their service as opposed to a hardware pre-order.

The reason for this is simple: That money was needed elsewhere. The CPU cooling system on my PC has been acting up lately and as I run my system overclocked, I needed to spend a good chunk of change on a better replacement solution for that. I’m also faced with the prospect of having to buy a new sound card soon due to the horrible, non-existent customer service I’m receiving from my current failing card’s manufacturer (more on that in another post). As my PC is currently my primary gaming platform, I want to make sure it’s running the best way possible and I wasn’t able to financially justify both that and my OUYA pledge in the same month.

I won’t lie, some of the coverage and the continuing non-answers from OUYA’s creators are causing me to raise some doubting eyebrows but rest assured, had this situation with my PC not arisen, I’d have kept my pledge where it was. I still think OUYA’s a great idea and has the potential to do great things and since I’m fully aware of the risks of support any Kickstarter project, I felt it was worth the risk. I’m certain there are at least a couple of projects out of the 22 I’ve backed that are either not going to make it to completion or be awful when they ship but them’s the breaks. Don’t play the Kickstarter game if you expect to win every time. I think OUYA is a worthwhile to back if it interests you but if it doesn’t grab you or you aren’t certain about what they’re showing, I totally get that too.

Some people will probably think this is a thinly-veiled excuse for me to slink away from the project because I’ve lost confidence in it. If you think that, I’m not going to waste my time convincing you otherwise. I know the truth and that’s all that matters. I might get lucky and pick up some extra freelance computer service work this month and if I do, I’ll be putting my money back in. If not, I look forward to picking one of these up at launch.

Business, Tablets, Technology, Video Games , , , ,

Indie Hypocrisy

1 Comment Posted by on June 14, 2012

Indie Game: The Movie finally released in various digital formats a couple of days ago. I got my copy for free because I Kickstarted the project and love it as much as I did when I saw it in the theatre. Most people think highly of it and the stories and characters it portrays but there are a handful that don’t. I don’t expect everyone to share my opinion and certainly not everyone will like it and that’s fine. However, two people’s public distaste in particular piss me off not because they’re negative but one in particular is just outright hypocritical.

The two opinions I speak of are those of Kevin Dent and Derek Smart. I’ll be honest, I don’t know a ton about Kevin Dent. He’s a guy who claims to have been in the industry for well over a decade and has some very strong opinions of it and the people in it. When I tried to look up what he’s been credited on, all I could find was a list he personally created that’s largely filled with mediocre mobile spin-off games and some modern series that I couldn’t find his name in any official credits for. He now apparently runs a company investing in mobile titles, none of which I’ve ever heard of. I don’t know every game that comes out but I know what’s popular. He’s very active in social media though and regularly gets quoted from the few respectable gaming press outlets so I guess that’s something. Many of these same outlets also quote Michael Pachter with regularity though so…yeah.

Derek Smart is far more famous (or infamous) among gamers as much for his take no prisoners attitude as his games. His Internet wars and push backs against criticism are legendary. Most blow him off but I actually respect him in many ways. I don’t care for his games and many of them have shipped a Bethesda level of broken but I really admire how he’s found a tight niche and flourished for years in it. Despite the immense complexity and ambition of his games, he does almost everything himself and that’s really impressive. He did the indie thing before it was a thing. We’ve had several pleasant conversations on Twitter and while I do think he tends to see the game industry very different from reality, he doesn’t come across as a bad guy and he loves what he does.

What really grinds my gears is some smarmy comments I saw these two posting on Twitter the other day. I’m not going to go back in their very active feeds to find them but basically, they were saying that the movie portrays all indie game designers as arrogant, whiny prima donnas who think they’re better than everyone else and thus gives the indie community as a whole a bad name. Yeah, let that sink in. Derek Smart, the guy who has cultivated and relishes in being all of those things and Kevin Dent, a guy who by his job description couldn’t be more what indies are not, are saying that a couple of indie creators who clearly go through several levels of Hell during the movie where they’re asked to talk about those experiences, come across as whiny and arrogant.

The thing is, they’re not wrong. Tommy Refenes and Phil Fish both do come across in the movie and in other places as high on themselves and don’t respond well to criticism. But Dent and Smart love to slam other game makers publicly and Smart is famous for responding to criticism with personal attacks, deleting any negative feedback from his forums and I’ve seen him more than once whine on Twitter about how people don’t understand what he’s making and how he should just give it up and retire. Both of these guys have credentials (as least Smart does, I’m not sure about Dent) but the thing is, everyone in Indie Game: The Movie does now too. They all put out games which are critical and commercial blockbusters as indie games go. What gives guys who have been at this longer more right to bitch and whine? Is it simply an implied seniority or do they really think that when they bitch, it’s somehow different?

I don’t mind people who are arrogant blowhards, I really don’t. If you are strong in a belief and can back it up with data and aren’t just living in a fantasy land, I think fighting for it is good and important. But when you start calling out people for doing the exact same thing you’ve done for years as if you’re somehow more entitled to do it than they are, you just look like a jackass. If the people in the movie never ended up releasing any games, I could maybe understand it but they all put out massive creative hits. Dent and Smart should be supporting fellow indie creators and treating them with that level of hypocritical disrespect is infuriating and why so much of the indie community has a reputation for being pretentious and arrogant. You guys are going to be gone one day and these are the new blood who are going to make the new amazing stuff going forward. You’re not better than them, you’re one of them, show a little humility and maybe a bit of praise.

Business, Video Games , , , , , , ,

You Should Go See Indie Game: The Movie

1 Comment Posted by on May 8, 2012

Some time ago, I was told by some gaming web site that this pair of first-time Canadian film makers were creating a documentary about making indie games and that they were looking for some Kickstarter help. I went and checked it out and it seemed pretty promising so I pitched in. They got funded and Indie Game: The Movie is now on a theatre tour with a home video release coming later. While I’m guaranteed a DVD (or hopefully Blu-ray) copy from my Kickstarter tier, I really wanted to see the finished product sooner and with a group of people who appreciated the type of stories being told. I was delighted to hear that they were doing a cross Canada showing of the film with a Q&A after so despite the high ticket price, I jumped in. Aside from losing about 15 minutes of the movie due to the incompetence of Bell TV (who was providing the delivery) and the Q&A not being nearly long enough, I was very entertained and was pleasantly surprised to see such high-calibre work from people who have never made a feature length documentary before.

Indie Game: The Movie chronicles tales from three well known indie game creators and their respective titles: Jonathan Blow with Braid, Edmund McMillen and Tommy Refenes with Super Meat Boy and finally, Canadian developer and controversy enthusiast Phil Fish with the recently released Fez. The latter two are filmed during development of their projects (with Super Meat Boy releasing during the course of filming and Fez having come out just a couple of weeks ago) with Blow talking about Braid through more of a retrospective angle. The stories told are not ones of the technical or even really the design challenges of making these games but the emotional rollercoaster the developers are on as they deal with lack of sleep, money and strained personal and business relationships. We’re shown how the Team Meat pair are pushed to the brink of exhaustion trying to get their game done, only to find that Microsoft didn’t honour their launch day promotion commitments. We’re shown how Phil Fish had to deal with a former business partner whose Machiavellian delay tactics drive him to a near breakdown and how he risked being sued by showing Fez at Penny Arcade Expo without the partner’s permission. In the end, they all got their games out and they were all great successes but their struggles are epic and their unwillingness to be phased by them is touching and admirable.

Many documentaries that try to portray these kinds of emotional challenges often feel forced and even choreographed but everything in Indie Game: The Movie comes across as genuine. I never felt that creative liberties were taken in the editing process to create drama and emotion where there wasn’t any before. You are being told a story as it happened rather than as the film makers wish it had happened. I found myself leaning forward in my seat and tensing up when the characters were hurting and wanting to cheer when they finally achieved their well-fought victories. As someone who is not easily moved and can spot fake attempts at emotional conveyance a mile away, this speaks volumes to the quality of both the stories and the direction. This may be a movie themed around making video games but it’s three tales of human struggle and sacrifice at its core and shows just what people are willing to endure for creative expressions they believe in.

Whether or not you’re into indie games or video games at all, Indie Game: The Movie is something I think anyone with an interest in these kinds of documentaries should check out. It’s an emotional and inspiring ride that will keep you engaged and will seem to go by quickly. This is an incredible first effort from James Swirsky and Lisanne Pajot and it’s great to see that it’s been a success for them. These two have a very bright future in film making and I’m happy I was able to contribute in a small way to getting this project made. I can’t wait for my home video copy and will no doubt end up watching it many times over. You can check their official web site for information on new screenings and eventually, information on the on-demand and home video releases for the general public. Anyone who is into documentaries or real stories of creative struggles will enjoy it and I highly recommend checking out a screening near you if you can.

Culture, Movies, Video Games , , , ,

On Gaming’s Future: Can indie publishing work?

Leave a Comment Posted by on January 27, 2012

I’ve always had a ton of respect for indie games and while I tend to buy a lot of them, I’ve always faulted myself for not playing nearly as many as I should. Even with creativity and innovation in the triple-A space as an all-time low, that’s always where I’ve tended to gravitate with my gaming time. That changed unexpectedly during the two weeks I had off from work at Christmas time. I played a boatload of Skyrim to be sure but most of my time was spent playing indie titles on my PC, some of which I had owned for a while and some of which I got during Steam’s annual bananas holiday sale. I spent a bunch of time with Rochard, Dungeon Defenders, Space Pirates And Zombies, Tribes Ascend (OK, not really an indie game in the strictest sense as it has money behind it but it is a totally independent developer) and dabbled in a bunch of other titles as well. For the most part I had an awesome time, especially when you consider I could have bought all the games listed above for less than the cost of a single triple-A title at release. There was real quality in these games and a creative vibe you don’t see elsewhere. I was pleasantly surprised as it wasn’t my intention to focus on those games during my time off. Each took a genre in a totally different and creative direction and they were a real palette cleanser.

The biggest problem most indie games face is that while there is a dedicated and devoted community that follows them, it is a very small subset of gamers as a whole and certainly nowhere near mainsteam. Most indie developers will work and sacrifice for years to make a title and few of them realise any significant profit from it. Generally making enough to fund development of the next title is considered a major victory to an indie developer. It’s criminal that these amazing, innovative, affordable titles don’t get more mainstream exposure but often, the only real way to do that is with a publisher. Of course, avoiding publishers and the “big business” way of thinking is what indie developers are all about, with good reason. Still, this leaves them between a rock and a hard place. Do they put the game out themselves and reap all the potential reward or do they partner with a publisher who may get more sales but keep a lot more of the proceeds and in the end, maybe even own the work?

A recent episode of the Jimquisition that was focused around a largely ridiculous view of piracy brought up one of the major problems with traditional publishing that I hadn’t considered. Publishers generally consider their most valuable assets the intellectual properties they own. The bigger the stable of IP they own, the greater value they are perceived to have. The problem is IP only has real value when it’s generating value. Jim Sterling told a story about a game called Metal Arms: Glitch In the System which came out on the last generation of consoles and which is one of his favourites. It was published at the time by Sierra, a division of Vivendi Universal Games who is now part of Activision. Metal Arms was developed by someone else but as is often the case with publishing deals, Sierra got the IP. The game shipped and was a critical darling but nobody bought it so Sierra put it on the shelf. The developer thought it was worth taking another crack at it so they asked to make another game in the series with Sierra and when Sierra wasn’t interested, they even tried to buy the IP back from them so they could do it themselves. Sierra refused, nothing was ever done with the Metal Arms IP and its value has continued to rot away. Now it’s virtually unknown outside of the few who bought and enjoyed the original game. Activision still owns it but it’s depreciated to the point of being virtually worthless.

It’s hard to argue that Metal Arms makes Activision any more valuable as a company at this point, yet the common belief among publishers is that simply having more IP makes you inherently more valuable. I think this is a dumb way of thinking because owning something that virtually no potential customers would know anything about isn’t worth anything. Yet ownership of IP is the main sticking point with developers big and small who want to work with publishers to release their games. Simply having a brand and driving continued sales of it isn’t enough, the publisher always wants to own it, even if it ultimately stagnates on a shelf. One of the reasons the indie game scene was founded was because of developers wanting to own what they make and not having to hand it over to a company who ultimately cares about shareholders over art. There are exceptions of course and developers who are large enough or able to self-fund their projects often do retain control of their IP and their creative destiny. This is very much the exception these days however and will only get more so as budgets continue to increase.

All of this got me wondering if there isn’t a potential business model in a happy middle ground, something I call “independent publishing”. The idea would be to pick the most valuable aspects of having a dedicated publisher but acting in a strictly supportive role to independent developers. An independent publisher would provide the public relations, development assistance, platform support (i.e. release slots and coordination for places like Xbox Live and PSN), drive consumer awareness and possibly even offer some small funding advances to worthy indie teams. The publisher would take a decent but not obnoxiously large slice of the proceeds depending on how much support they provide but the developer would always own the IP of the products they bring in. The value of the publishing company would not be created from owning a bunch of IP but in fostering long-term relationships with creative indie teams, releasing a steady stream of new games and profiting from the revenue share.

This would put the indie teams at ease because while they get access to the tools and resources needed to get their games into the mainstream consciousness, they know they aren’t creating something which will ultimately be handed over to someone else, leaving them with nothing to show at the end but their meagre royalties. It will also keep the publisher honest and force them to provide top notch service to their developers because their value and ultimate worth is going to come purely from sales, not ownership of the final product and associated brand. Publishers today always refer to the developers they work with as partners but in reality, it’s a domineering relationship. An “independent publishing” model would truly be a partnership. One side needs the other equally and in the end, they work together, grow together and prosper together. There are some attempts at trying this model with groups like the Indie Fund and the Extra Credits initiative but these are designed more around giving funding advanced to indie developers to finish projects. That’s awesome and very useful but what I’m proposing is a whole new subset of the industry that would provide a full suite of publishing and marketing services, not just bursaries. It would offer all the good things about a publisher with none of the current bad things.

I’ll be the first person to say I don’t know nearly enough about the games business to know if this could work or to take a shot at it myself. If I won the lottery tomorrow and had a lot of money to burn, maybe I would. Nonetheles, I think there may be potential for real success with this kind of model if smart people ran with it. The current paradigm of large, publicly traded video game publishers may not be supported by this but as I’ll discuss in a future post, that business structure isn’t really working anymore either and may not be sustainable. New ways need to be found to continue to advance this medium creatively while still having it make money. True innovation is coming from indie developers and if companies can come along to provide them the means to reach a large audience while not insisting on owning their souls in the process, I think it could meant great things for gaming as a whole. I wonder if anyone with the money and business chops thinks similarly. If so, I’d love to talk to them.

Business, Predictions, Video Games , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 369 other followers