I started thinking about this after reading the posts in the IGF
thread and taking the survey found in some earlier thread. What
got me puzzled was that, reading betwen the lines, I got the
impression that some of you were not agreeing with the IGF
definition of Independent, i.e. not associated with IDSA. And there
was some bickering about the budget sizes and similar.

This surprised me because I had been agreeing with the IGF
definition all along. As I saw it the independent field seemed so
varied that a negative definition like the "not IDSA" seemed the
most appropriate. Now however I am beginning to doubt. Is
there maybe some finer distinctions in independent? It is not a
species but instead a genus, or maybe even a family? I need
some guidance here.

The other question was about the word Shareware. ASP defines
it as "try-before you buy". However the line seems muddled here
too. Why is not some retail game producer with a downloadable
demo a shareware producer? Do you count marketing expenses
to classify someone as a shareware producer or not? This is not
the main problem I have grasping this term. There seems to be
something else, call it culture or group cohesion, about this
shareware thing?

Kai-Peter


PS. Shareware is still different from the thing it was in the late
eighties. But I am more interested in the current affairs.

References:
IGF Independent Games Festival http://www.igf.org
IDSA International Digital Software Association http://www.idsa.com
ASP Association of Shareware Professionals http://www.asp-shareware.org

If a big developer releases a demo thats stupidly big (ive seen 200MB demos recently) then thats not shareware to me.
Unless I can download the game in under an hour on a 56k modem, and thats the full game, even if it might need a key to unlock it, then I don't consider it shareware.
If the game costs over $25 I'm not thinking of it as shareware.
Maybe shareware isn't the right word for what I'm thinking of, maybe Indie Game is. In addition:

A true indie game doesnt have lots of tedious splash screens covered in legal mumbo jumbo before you get to play it.
A true indie game doesn't consist of mostly badly acted FMV sequences with scripts written by focus groups.
A true indie game has not been designed by a focus group. Someone has had a cool idea and followed it through
A true indie game has a developer that provides good tech support and continues to show interest in the product years after release

Just my early morning ramblings I'm afraid.

I'm not sure I'm really happy with that definition of "indie". Perhaps it's the best they can do legally without making a lot of grey area in the rules (IDSA or not IDSA makes a distinct line between black & white). And perhaps it is pretty well encompasing...are there any major publishers who are not part of the IDSA and are willing to fund games? If the answer is no, then I guess it works. However, if the answer is yes, I don't really like the idea of having to compete against big-budgeted games. Than again, what if someone were enormously wealthy and wanted to just throw a million at building a team and developing a game just for their own amusement. You can get a lot of grey area, so maybe that's why the IDSA line was chosen.

As far as "what is shareware", a common stance in the ASP (and the one I share) is that it is a form of marketing, having nothing to do with a type of product. You market the product directly to your customers using the try-before-you-buy method.

Yes, shareware is a marketing method. It basically just refers to software that is marketed with try-before-you-buy methods. This would include free demos, trial versions, and (some might argue) free web-based versions.

I missed the whole IGF thread I'm afraid (or haven't read it yet). But sadly my opinion of the IGF has dropped steadily since its introduction (and this includes having once been a judge for it). IMO, the IGF primarily reinforces the view that to be successful games need to look like those sold at retail -- and in fact, actual game play is often deemed to be of less importance than way-cool graphics, as shown by the past winners.

On the question of 'what is shareware', I'm still pretty new to this whole scene. But I hope that at some point we're able to shuck off the 'shareware' label; to many I think it has a connotation of being amateurish, unsteady, even shady. Unfortunately 'direct marketing' has been given a bad name by bulk mailers! I hope we're able to come up with something that sets us apart from the retailers, but without any "minor league" implications.

The good news is that the BigGameCo retail game industry has almost zero visibility on or knowledge of the shareware part of the industry. They don't see any reason to move in this direction, which gives all of us time to get our houses in order before EA or or Microsoft or Activision recognizes the opportunity and jumps in. Of course, there's no telling how long this grace period will last.

I felt I had to chip in on this topic and make my 2c herd.

I think there are two entities being confused here. There's the definition of an independent game development company and there's the cult of indie game development.

I define an independent game development company as any company that hasn't secured a contract with a publisher who has given them money to develop a game. If they are being funded to develop a game by the publisher and the publisher now has a stake in how they develop and what they develop they are no longer independent.

An independent developer is one who is not restricted by any investors or outside business entities that would interfere with their game development process. Just because some indie developers happen to have a staggering amount of money despite the fact that they don’t have a publisher giving it to them is only to their credit. I say “More power to them, go make a killer game.” Even though i'll be highly jealous of them. ;)

If I were to retire in 20 years with a couple million in cash (sweet fantasy that it is) and set about to create my Opus of Gaming sweetness, I would still consider myself independent. But the minute a big retail publisher is paying me to develop my game and setting my milestones and telling me what elements they want and don't want in my game is the minute I cease to be independent.

The other entity worthy of mention is the cult of indie gaming. This is analogus to being the dark side of the force for independent communities everywhere. Much of the independent rock scene has been eclipsed by elitists who label anyone that signs with anything that isn’t an indie music label as a sell-out. They think that they are some how superior members of the non-independent community. They're also vigilant about protecting the “principles” of independence, even to a point of excluding new members who they don’t think have the “independent image”.

I would hate to see this form of elitism take over the independent game development community. The discussion reminds me of a thread I was reading on the definition of the Japanese word “shin-ken” which is literally translated as “true-sword”. Some people felt that a sword was the ultimate representation of truth, if one were to hold a “true” sword in it’s perfection they would know that they held in their hand pure truth. Such a sword could only be forged in Japan and are few and far between. Others took the stance that a shinken was any sword that was made using the traditional Japanese art of forging. Many western smiths have studied under Japanese sword smiths and have learned the art from actual Japanese masters. They then take what they have learned back to their own countries and forge traditional swords in the old ways. For them a true sword is one that is fully functional with a cutting edge and sturdy construction and forged with traditional techniques.

I would liken the indie cult to the first definition, where the values of the community are somewhat metaphysical and slightly religious. Those who consider themselves to be part of that community defend vigilantly from “corruption” from outside influences. The do not welcome new members without some proof of virtue and they do not share their knowledge with others. The second definition is how I would prefer independent development be defined. In inclusive practical terms, such that it is welcoming of new members and values the distribution of knowledge to all members and potential members of the community.

We stand to gain a lot if we can build into our indie game community the values of accepting, including, and helping others as well as each other. It actually takes more effort to maintain a positive community then it does to belong to an elitist one. Sometimes you find yourself repeating the same information over and over to new members, some times people ask you for your feedback and you don’t really feel like giving it. Sometimes people want advice, or even worse sometimes people will give you feedback on your own work. Often it’s a lot easier to go off like an elitist prick and tell people why it wont work, or why they’ll never succeed, or why the have no right to be criticizing your game. But all that does is alienate and fragment what otherwise could be a friendly, healthy, growing community.

I want to be clear that I’m not accusing anyone in this community of being elitist. The members of this board especially are all mature, friendly individuals and they make posting here a real pleasure. I write (what has become a monster of a post) this because I think that the culture we have here is something to be valued and protected.

Originally posted by Kai-Peter
References:
IGF Independent Games Festival http://www.igf.org


lol I think you ment igf.com - I checked out igf.org it's "The Royal Society for the Relief of Indigent Gentlewomen of Scotland (IGF)"

I agree with Dan's post. Indie just means doing it on your own.

As someone who's been struggling with his lack of budget/resources for some years now, seeing someone stuff $500K or $1M into a game and call it "indie" does rankle a bit, but it still qualifies. As Dan put it, "More power to them." I wish them all the best. Really. :)

Besides, it might be *me* with that larger budget indie game in the near future. ;)

Here's hoping!

Of course having money doesn't disqualify you from being an indie, but it is typically (not always) one of those red flags. If I have a million dollars from my own personal fortune for my budget and develop a game by myself, am I indie? What if I work with other people? What if I'm just the designer (designer only role isn't really typical for indies). What if I'm not even a designer, only an "idea" person? How about if I get the money from a friend/relative? What if I use venture capital? Or go through a small publisher. Or get $1,000,000 from EA?

I think most anyone could agree that the first case is an indie, and the last case is not, but in between there is a lot of grey. Where exactly do you draw the line? Now change that $1,000,000 to only $100, and I think a lot of the grey turns white (though I'm not sure why you would get $100 from EA). A large sum of money sets off "not-indie" warning alarm for me.

I believe anyone who thinks they are an indie and don't fall into the last category are indeed indie developers (by a strict definition). At the very least they shouldn't be told the are not an "indie" by developers who consider themselves to be "more indie" then they are. "If they aren’t against us then they are for us" can get a lot of mileage here. If they make a really great game and call themselves an indie developer then so be it. It makes independent developers look better and chances are if the community has warmly accepted that developer he's more likely to give back to that community.

We all stand to gain when we adopt an attitude of inclusion as opposed to exclusion.

I’m personally for a looser definition of indie that’s more inclusive. Does it really matter how much “indie” a developer is? Should a developer who has a smaller budget be considered better because he is more indie then a developer with a large bankroll? To me those attitudes are just playground rivalry. Is cliffski any less an independent developer because Real Arcade is publishing one of his games? Or how about any of the games being published by Dexterity are any of those developers less indie?

Now I know this is slightly different because the developers pitched “finished products” to their respective publishers and the publisher didn’t have any input into the game design/implementation.

Still if Real Arcade was to sign a publishing deal with cliffski to make Planetary Defense 2 would he suddenly stop being an indie developer? In my mind no, being an indie developer is more a state of mind, and I don’t think it’s our job as members of the community to police it. Technically if cliffski did the Planetary Defense 2 thing then he wouldn’t be an independent developer by a strict definition, but what if his next project was a self funded, self published title? Would he then go back to being an indie developer and be welcomed back to the indie community. Did he ever really leave? In my mind all he did was take a good opportunity to make some cash.

Being indie is really more about crafting meaningful games as opposed to just mindlessly pushing out the next sequel on the newest hardware. Being indie is about catering to different markets that the big guys are forgetting about. It’s about being creative and taking risks and it’s having a can do attitude and remembering the little guys.

Dan,
Not to argue with you by any means, but where do you draw the line? If you say you can get a load of cash from a small publisher and be indie but not if you get it from EA, then which publishers qualify? Any publisher that hasn't screwed someone over? Or just those that sign the check and shut up?


What about iD? Do they qualify as indie? They were definitely indie once upon a time. They have their own portion of the market, and I would definitely say they cater to their audience. What is a meaningful game? The next big indie game will probably be no more meaningfiul to Thresh than Doom 3 will be to my dad.

Please don't get me wrong here...I'm just playing devil's advocate. Making this matter more interesting in terms of the IGF (which is kinda where this discussion started, and something I have an interest in as an entrant), less than 2 years ago Wild Tangent was a finalist in the IGF. Now they are an IDSA publisher and considered off limits. What changed?

As fas as I am aware Id has been independant since they left Apogee (although 'm not 100% positive on that). This is independant in the sense that they have enough money that they don't need publishers anymore. Does this mean Doom 3 could enter in the IGF? I think they probably could if they wanted to.

I think it comes down to a problem that people want to define nice even categories where everyone in each category would be competing on a pretty even footing.

The thing is, it doesn't really matter. Short of the IGF, I can't think of any need for a firm definition. Those people of like will find each other anyway, like us all here.

Snap!

Don't you just hate it when someone says the same thing as you while you are typing up the post.

I think there is relevance in defining the term "indie developer" as a means of giving a general definition to the community. Personally I think ID is still an Indie developer, they are 100% self owned and operated, and they make their own games, on their own schedule. Basically they are living the dream of any independent developer, we all should be so lucky. Sure maybe they are competing with the big guys which kind of goes against the "indie" ethos. But in terms of a strict definition they are still "independent".

In the simplest terms and "indie developer" is a game developer who is not accountable to a publisher for the development of their game and not dependent on a publisher to fund development of thier game.

It can be worded better then that, but that's the general idea.

What I was ranting about above was the desire that we not take this definition and use it as a cookie cutter to define who can and cannot belong to the indie community. I guess it's sort of a tangential issue, I wasn't trying to debate the definition of indie or the validity of drawing a line between definition of an indie and non-indie development company. But rather that we guard against miss-applying any such definition.

Originally posted by LordKronos
I think most anyone could agree that the first case is an indie, and the last case is not, but in between there is a lot of grey. Where exactly do you draw the line? Now change that $1,000,000 to only $100, and I think a lot of the grey turns white (though I'm not sure why you would get $100 from EA). A large sum of money sets off "not-indie" warning alarm for me.

I certainly see your point about it being a red flag. However, 3000AD(Derek Smarts gig) and Octopus Motor(They Came From Hollywood) are a couple examples of teams who are independent while still having large budgets.

Originally posted by Dan MacDonald
We all stand to gain when we adopt an attitude of inclusion as opposed to exclusion.

I’m personally for a looser definition of indie that’s more inclusive. Does it really matter how much “indie” a developer is? Should a developer who has a smaller budget be considered better because he is more indie then a developer with a large bankroll? To me those attitudes are just playground rivalry. Is cliffski any less an independent developer because Real Arcade is publishing one of his games? Or how about any of the games being published by Dexterity are any of those developers less indie?

Still if Real Arcade was to sign a publishing deal with cliffski to make Planetary Defense 2 would he suddenly stop being an indie developer? In my mind no, being an indie developer is more a state of mind, and I don’t think it’s our job as members of the community to police it. Technically if cliffski did the Planetary Defense 2 thing then he wouldn’t be an independent developer by a strict definition, but what if his next project was a self funded, self published title? Would he then go back to being an indie developer and be welcomed back to the indie community. Did he ever really leave? In my mind all he did was take a good opportunity to make some cash.

Being indie is really more about crafting meaningful games as opposed to just mindlessly pushing out the next sequel on the newest hardware. Being indie is about catering to different markets that the big guys are forgetting about. It’s about being creative and taking risks and it’s having a can do attitude and remembering the little guys.

You make some excellent points. But I'll propose something to you that had me a little confused the other day. What about a guy like Chris Sawyer? He does almost everything on the Rollercoaster Tycoon games himself, and is not considered an Infogrames employee. Is he indie?

I was thinking about it because I sometimes find myself conflicted over what games to include in our game Library at DIY Games. Chris might be doing it himself, but I'm honestly not sure if one could call him a "true indie"(boy, reading that out loud does make it sound elitist). In the end I decided we wouldn't include his titles in the library but we would pursue interview and article possibilities.

The lines are getting more and more difficult to see, and it really excites me because that means we're getting to the point where some highly talented individuals CAN compete.

You're right; it's a tricky line to draw. I think I might have included Chris in the list. GoD (Railroad Tycoons Publisher) Games was heralded as an independent publisher, even though it was mostly an enclave for retail industry rebels that broke off and made games that competed head to head with standard retail games.

We have to be careful not to label the successful indie developers as no longer being indie because they are successful. We shouldn't see ourselves as a repressed minority but rather as community of individuals who are on the way up. We should value those members of the community who are successful as they have a lot of experience to offer. Imagine if Chris frequented these news groups, it would be a great resource to see him field a few questions every now and then. What would be really interesting is to email him and see if he considers himself to be an indie developer. If he thinks he is, then I do to! I’m all for including him ;)

Originally posted by Dan MacDonald
We have to be careful not to label the successful indie developers as no longer being indie because they are successful. We shouldn't see ourselves as a repressed minority but rather as community of individuals who are on the way up. We should value those members of the community who are successful as they have a lot of experience to offer. Imagine if Chris frequented these news groups, it would be a great resource to see him field a few questions every now and then. What would be really interesting is to email him and see if he considers himself to be an indie developer. If he thinks he is, then I do to! I’m all for including him ;)

Your make a good observation. What happens when you're following a title that could be easily defined as being indie. Before the team finishes their product a publisher picks them up and helps them to finish (Ala' Rewolf and their half-life mod cum retail game Gunman Chronicles). Not many people would consider Gunman to be an indie game, but to a large degree it is. (By the way, anyone know what happened to those guys? Havn't been able to track any of them down)

As far as Chris Sawyer is concerned, he definately is a great asset to the indie game scene. A shame we havn't heard more from him. I emailed his management rep earlier today, so we'll have to wait and see how that goes. :)

I guess the distinction should come from the "spirit" of the IGF and not the written letter of the law. The idea was to give one-man and small development teams a chance to have their work seen by a "professional" peer review. If that spirit seems to be eclipsed lately by larger teams and bigger budgets then maybe it's time to reevaluate the mission of the IGF.

Someone with a million dollars of seed money or a team of 30 artists arguably doesn't need the exposure of the IGF to launch their project wheras the true independents (one man, small team, no budget) could use that assistance.

I will saythis: It's a sad occurance when those with bigger budgets are able to muscle in on an independent forum, but it happens everywhere - film (ahem...Sundance anyone?), music, and art. It's part of the commercial reality that we are working in.

On a final note, I question whether the IGF is really of any value to an independent. When highly derivative RTS games are getting all the recognition maybe it's time for those who view themselves as "true independents" to politely back out and say, "no thankyou". After, all isn't the big prize $10,000? Half of which you burn through in airfare, hotel and setting up your "booth". Ummm...I could have sworn I just read an article somewhere about how you can potentially make that much selling your game on the internet...hmmm....where was that?

You also might be lucky enough to get noticed by a major distributor and have your game released as discount shovelware with a crappy royalty percentage. Yippee! A distribution deal is not hard to find - a GOOD distribution deal is a challenge and I'm still waiting to hear about any runaway success stories from IGF winners.

I agree that Chris sawyer is an indie, for me he is the ultimate indie, a guy making a top selling full price game whilst still doing it on his own. I would like to see him do something other than rollercoaster games though ;)
It would be excellent to get him to post on this board.

I have my own ideas about what makes an indie game but they are probably just my own views on how gaming should be. Some of my pet hates include half a dozen different 'splash' screens you have to sit and yawn through at a games start, use of pointless FMV, and games whose installers assume you want all your EA games in the "EA Games" directory. Like anyone really cares...

I don't know if I should be posting in this thread, since all you guys seem to know what you're talking about.

I agree with Dan MacDonald's description of indie though

In the simplest terms and "indie developer" is a game developer who is not accountable to a publisher for the development of their game and not dependent on a publisher to fund development of thier game.

That's it, so it shouldn't matter how much money they have, or
that they're picked up by a publisher, of course once they make a new game with that new publisher, then they cease to be independant because the publisher will start controlling how the new game is done.

but then again i'm just a lowly lone wolf

Oh before I start this thread on another tangent, I define a lone wolf as a single person and not a small two person or more team.

Keith Weatherby II aka Uhfgood

Originally posted by Uhfgood
but then again i'm just a lowly lone wolf

lowly? Don't look so down on it. Lone wolves rule. At least until you get to that piece of code you really don't feel like dealing with...then you have no one else to hand it off to. :D

Originally posted by Dan MacDonald
I felt I had to chip in on this topic and make my 2c herd.

I define an independent game development company as any
company that hasn't secured a contract with a publisher who has
given them money to develop a game. If they are being funded to
develop a game by the publisher and the publisher now has a
stake in how they develop and what they develop they are no
longer independent.

An independent developer is one who is not restricted by any investors or outside business entities that would interfere with their game development process. Just because some indie developers happen to have a staggering amount of money despite the fact that they don’t have a publisher giving it to them is only to their credit. I say “More power to them, go make a killer game.” Even though i'll be highly jealous of them. ;)

i agree wholeheartedly with what dan has said....

personally, being a true independent(in whatever you do) is a
"state of mind", whereas you're basically a "do it yourselfer".
on a purely primitive level an indie developer
will glad accept successes(obviously),
and is willing to accept the non-sucesses of his/her efforts.
so if you're an indie developer then you'll design, develop/create,
publish, market, and distribute your product[s] yourself....
with no funding or outside influence that affects the outcome of
your product. the grey area of this is when a developer
has a publishing relationship and the publisher "allows" the
developer to "operate" independently.
to me this is not the definition of an indie developer.


another point i'd like to make to elaborate on Dan's point and
some of the others is that.....well in my opinion, a developer
whos professes to be an indie but has a publisher funding them
is not a true indie developer. not to take anything away from
them but in reality, their livelihood depends on the
publisher. accountable is the word that was used i believe...
a developer who's lucky enough to have a "distribution" deal for
their product would be considered a true indie since they are
potentially still free to do what they want with subsequent
products that they've funded the creation of themselves.....
not many AAA developers have this type of arrangement other
than ID i would assume.


We stand to gain a lot if we can build into our indie game community the values of accepting, including, and helping others as well as each other. It actually takes more effort to maintain a positive community then it does to belong to an elitist one. Sometimes you find yourself repeating the same information over and over to new members, some times people ask you for your feedback and you don’t really feel like giving it. Sometimes people want advice, or even worse sometimes people will give you feedback on your own work. Often it’s a lot easier to go off like an elitist prick and tell people why it wont work, or why they’ll never succeed, or why the have no right to be criticizing your game. But all that does is alienate and fragment what otherwise could be a friendly, healthy, growing community.


this is a valid point....but unfortunately as with all communities...
some will apply these values and most will not.


ok, enough of my 2cents....
i'm going back to work....