Here's an interview with Derek Smart, the guy who made the Battlecruiser games. He has an interesting strategy making retail quality titles that target a niche corner of the retail industry that's too small to pick up interest from most retail publishers. It seems to work I guess, I still think targeting the huge casual gamer market that is largely ignored by industry is a better way to be successful and accomplish your goals.

The interesting thing is that I’ve heard stories about how Derek is pretty much unloved anywhere he posts online. After reading this interview I see why, he blows his own horn louder then John Romero blew his. I don't think I've ever met an Indie Developer so self-absorbed. I wonder what he might accomplish if he had a slightly less egotistical attitude? Anyway.. for your viewing pleasure


http://www.canadiangamer.ca/Interviews/3000AD/page1.shtml

This guy kind of reminds me of Andre LaMothe for some reason (no, not because of the picture). It's that same kind of Me, Me, Me attitude. I'm not sure I can articulate why that is so annoying.

For instance, Steve (our gracious host) writes about his own experience, but he manages to do it in a much more humble (?) fashion.

I dunno. If I start to get all horn-tooty, everyone one of you has an open invitation to smack me upside the head. :)

Originally posted by Siebharinn

I dunno. If I start to get all horn-tooty, everyone one of you has an open invitation to smack me upside the head. :)

Me too people, I can see my future right now and I'll be pretty egotistical so somebody smack me too. I'll be the guy who makes an awesome indie game that everybody should love because I'm the best programmer out there and I'm the best.

Originally posted by Siebharinn
This guy kind of reminds me of Andre LaMothe for some reason (no, not because of the picture). It's that same kind of Me, Me, Me attitude. I'm not sure I can articulate why that is so annoying.


I think the biggest problem is that he doesn't let his accomplishments speak for themselves, he says... here see what i've done? that prooves it, i'm the best! If he just stopped at "the first release of Battlecruiser sold 64k copies in the first month" I would be impressed. But he follows by using this data as a stepping stone of credibility to begin criticizing the industry and overstating his own impact. But in doing so I think he actually looses a lot of his credibility.

If he just would have stopped with the facts, i think i would have more respect for him, but when I see him drawing all kinds of glamorous conclusions about himself from those facts he just comes across as a self inflated individual who doesn't have the objectivity to see what a fool he's making of himself.

When you contrast that with Steve, who is very reluctant to share the numbers behind his accomplishments, and never uses his success or expirence to make himself seem better then anyone else.... well i guess that's the difference between an amature and a professional ;)

Derek is a regular poster on the Quarter To Three (http://www.quartertothree.com). It's usually interesting to see his thoughts on different things, and he'll be sure to tell you whether or not you ask for his opinion.

One thing that has always kind of irked me about him is his complete lack of respect for other independent developers(his thoughts on GarageGames for example are interesting). Or the fact that he tends to distance himself from the term 'indie developer' except when it serves his side of an argument. This recent discussion (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1769) is a good example of how he doesn't seem to care for the 'garage' indies out there.

Hmmm...interesting discussion. Is that the prevailing notion of an "indie"? A studio free to make their own titles, even if funded by a publisher? How many studios are forced to make games that their publishers want?

Has anyone played Battlecruiser? Any good?

I kind of have the problem of getting a slight ego-bound. However, not in that kind of way. When someone trys to tell me what I should do, and I see that they haven't finished any games I usually bring that to their attention. That gives me a bit of an egotist. However, if you've been more successful than I, (like alot of people on this board) I don't get like that.

I guess it kind of bugs me when someone thinks that I should do something better when they haven't done anything themselves.

I'm not usually touting my own skills however, as they are far from anything special (in fact i've only finished 3 games, that's about the extent of anything good i've done)... And that usually doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Agg, i posted in that thread that Gmicek linked to.. everything I've ever learnd about forums went out the window... you never post in a thread like that... you just end up looking bad too. Oh well, I had something i really felt needed to be said.

Well Dan, it should be an interesting reply :P

One thing I took away from the time I was at the IGC was the utter lack of faith in many "retail veterans" that there wasn't anything of value outside retail. that any effort was "still born" or a pitance. And frankly I don't see the need to suggest to them there is, just that many more hands in the our indie pie.

Yet the retail veterns, time and time again seem to often lead lives of feast and famine. A life of uncertainty, milestone to milestone. Something that doesn't appeal to me in the least at least not at any hands but my own.

Frankly you and many of the folks that frequent this board have or are developing the skills to produce games or other software that will sustain a living...and not in a fleeting way.

Which is better... being a puppet for the retail suits and not knowing if you will be able to make your house payment in 3 months or building your own future full of trial & error and no one to blame but yourself.

Don't let folks squash your spirit. That's something that many "worker bees" have long since lost.

Be true to your beliefs and be persistent.
Keep on your toes and keep your sights high.
Then you'll do fine.

Those are comforting words jonas, it's nice to know that other people see things the same way I do.

It's also nice to know that it's not just a good idea, it actually works as a number of the members of this community have shown.

You're right though, it's amazing how painfully un-aware a lot of people with a retail industry background are to the potential online distribution and games targeted to casual gamers...

It's self-deception to say 'my way is the best and only way to do it right' and Derek Smart seems to run into this trap in each and every sentence he writes/says.

He bloats his own ego by saying any other way than his is not viable.

I think psychology has a term for this, something like 'reduction of cognitive dissonance'. Don't know the exact English phrase. (not my mother language)

I've never met Derek, but what we have in common is that we both had dealings with Take 2 Interactive.

In 1996, I signed a deal with Take 2 for us to develop a retail game, and we received the first advance check of $50,000. Take 2 began stonewalling us almost immediately, pulling a D&D license out of their back pocket they said we had to apply to the game (for a never-released D&D world that was really, really bad in its design). Retrofitting our existing game design to the D&D world was hideously difficult, but we wanted to be cooperative, so we did our best to adapt. Unfortunately, Take 2 was extremely slow in getting our design changes approved, and I remember we used to refer to them as "Take 2 Long." A few months into the deal, after the initial advance was all spent and we were awaiting the next milestone payment, I received a letter from Take 2's lawyer saying they were backing out of the deal and demanded that we pay back the initial advance in full. I was shocked, and after a few phone calls with their CEO (Ryan Brant), it didn't take me long to learn where this decision came from. A year later they sued me for the $50K advance plus their legal fees. Fortunately, I was able to convince them to drop the suit (which was completely frivolous anyway), and in so doing, I uncovered even more deception.... (very long story).

I could have sued them, and I had a good chance of winning, since they clearly breached our written agreement, and I had plenty of documentation from others in their company of which they weren't aware. But in the end I felt that was the wrong choice for me.

In 1997-98 I went through another situation with a different publisher. This one seemed to have most of their values in the right place, but they ran out of cash and eventually got bought out and had to back out of the deal before completion.

In the linked interview, Derek labels his dealings with Take 2 as "disastrous." I could certainly choose to apply the same label, but instead I see it as "absolutely wonderful." I didn't feel this way at the time, but even then, when Take 2 was unilaterally backing out of our deal, I kept asking myself, "What's good about this? What's the lesson here? What can I learn from this that will help me grow even stronger?" It took a while, but the answers did eventually come because I asked the right questions. I never asked, "How could they do this to me? Why me?" since the answers would have only disempowered me. If not for Take 2, Dexterity probably wouldn't be a publisher today. We might be a struggling retail-oriented developer or possibly nonexistent. Because of the adverse experiences and all the deceit and dishonesty, it pushed me completely in the opposite direction. I shifted from retail to online marketing, started volunteering and writing articles, became interested in different types of products, and worked hard to build Dexterity around a totally different value system.

Signing the deal with Take 2 was my choice. I didn't have to do it. There were warning signs I didn't recognize at the time, like how they talked about Derek behind his back while they were negotiating with me. I should have realized that a publisher that would hold its development partners in such low esteem wasn't the right choice for me. But I didn't see it at the time. The lesson was a costly one, but I'm grateful for the deal I had with Take 2 because it taught me some crucial lessons. It showed me the kind of person I would become if I followed the same path.

I was listening to some Jim Rohn tapes the other day where he talks about integrity. He notes that there was a time in history when lying was a very serious matter. Being accused of a lie might have lead to a duel that would cost you your life. Personal honor was held as sacred. But today a lie means that we pull out the lawyers and let the courts handle it. I think Jim's point is valid. When you focus on money as your #1 value above all else (at the cost of your integrity), you end up with a business that is missing its soul, and this is a much greater loss than any amount of money.

Its good to read posts like this as it goes to show I'm not such a total pushover ;) The only deals I have had that have made me want to pull my hair out and had me threatening to sue people have been with retail publishers. There is one guy I have been speaking to about retailing my games since 1997. Every time he emails me he assures me that the product is about to ship, it never does, and I never see any money.
I dont put much effort into getting my stuff into retail, so far they have only made retail in collections by egames, and the earnings are pretty low (the %tage per copy sold is very low).
I make more money online, and these days even some online publishers seem to be getting pretty useless.
Its just a pity Dexterity dont do strategy games, or I dont do puzzle games i guess...

Years ago I realized that working with negative or dishonest people just isn't worth the cost, so I tend to avoid such people like the plague. But if you do find yourself stuck in such a situation, you generally have to speak a different language, and that's the language of fear. By creating a circle of leverage around dishonest people, you can often pressure them to fulfill their promises.

A great book I highly recommend in this area is Michael Boylan's The Power To Get In. While written from the perspective of how a salesperson can "get in" with a new prospective client, the main value of the book lies in the Circle of Leverage idea. When you have a problem that isn't getting resolved, you contact at least five people inside the company and five people outside the company who do business with that company, letting each person know the whole list of people being contacted. Thus, you create internal and external leverage on the decision makers, and this often leads to quick action. When the CEO of a company gets a complaint letter that's says it's been CC'd to several people within his company and several of his business associates, you can bet this is going straight to the top of his agenda for the day. But if you send a letter or email to just one person in a company, it's easily ignored or put off.

I have used this approach on many occasions when I needed to motivate another company to honor their commitments. It has worked every time. So if I found myself in a situation where a publisher wasn't honoring their commitments, I would draft a letter explaining the situation and requesting a specific remedy, starting with a line like this, "This letter has been sent to you, person A, person B, ... and person X." For a publisher I would send it to everyone you know at that publisher, plus any business contacts of theirs you know, including other developers, suppliers, distributors, trade associations, etc. Just keep the letter factual and unemotional, and ask for a specific remedy. You'll probably be contacted by the other party almost immediately, and they'll likely be in the mood to resolve the situation quickly.

The reason this works is that dishonest people hate for their dishonorable acts to be made public. Many of the people you involve in the letter won't care a bit, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that you're shining a bright light on the other party's actions, one they cannot ignore. This may or may not end the relationship with the other party, but usually by the time you're considering using it, the relationship is already dead, and you're only looking for some form of closure, not a continuation of business.

Because of the potency of this method, I've been finding that simply giving the offending party a warning that this is our next step is usually enough by itself. You don't want to embarrass a person/company if you can avoid it, so this should be considered a last resort. Also, you should only use this method when you're clearly being stonewalled, i.e. not if the other party and you have an honest disagreement.

I think part of "paying your dues" as an indie, or just as a small business owner, is having that One Bad Contract. That's the one that teaches you your single most valuable lesson about negotiating and/or reading the fine print.

It seems like a great deal, and comes pretty much out of nowhere, and at a time when you're looking to grow in a new direction, or just need the cash. You hit it off with the other party and you just go with the contract/deal they send you.

Then reality sinks in. You were optimistic. Or they were unrealistic. You can't quite get it all done in the time given. Or they suddenly exercise that "deliver early or else" option that they assured they almost never use.

The next step is just getting through this contract in one piece and moving on. Hopefully.

I was fortunate, I think, in that my One Bad Contract was strictly verbal. I hopelessly underbid the gig, and they were hopelessly optimistic about the time required. I agreed to do the work, though, despite misgivings. However, when a month had passed and they had not sent me the paperwork to sign and send back, I seized the oppurtunity to back out.

Since then, I never make a bid that isn't fully considered, and even a bit high (to me). And I never sign a contract or agree to anything without going through every clause of the paperwork--and asking questions where I'm not sure what's intended.

You live, you learn.

-David

Lots of great comments in this thread.

Steve, I've had only tangential dealings with Brant and Take 2, but they mirror yours pretty well. I've also had uglier dealings with others, involving lots of expensive lawyers, etc. Suffice it to say that dishonest, unethical people are just not worth doing business with. (Do you know the old parable about the boy who trusts a snake only to be bitten after helping it? Seeing the boy's hurt and surprise, the snake says, "you knew what I was when you picked me up.")

Some of the earlier comments led me to thinking about the different kinds of people in the games industry. This may be an expansion on the amateur vs. professional that Steve has explored so well.

The first group are those in retail. These people either work for a large company, getting a paycheck every two weeks, or live the feast-and-famine cycle of an 'independent' developer that is in fact wholly dependent on their publisher for their livelihood. Talk to a few of these people after the flush of excitement of their contract and first milestone payment has worn off, and they'll likely describe their situation as being one of the circles of hell.

On the other end of the spectrum are the vast concourses of wannabes. These are people who love to play games, and so reason that they would also love making games, and no doubt be killer good at it. They're caught up in the cool factor (having been seduced by visions of John Romero, Richard Garriott, and companies with names like Rock Star Games or GOD Games), and really have little to no idea what's involved in conceiving, developing, producing, and most of all finishing a game. Not incidentally, most of the indie forums on the Net are chock full of these people. Sites like this one (Dexterity) and the ASP boards are welcome oases in this sea of "hey I wanna make a game" posters/poseurs.

Back toward the retail side of things are those developers, many independents like Derek Smart who, not without some reason, continue to say things like "the game industry is hit driven" or "game budgets tend to be around $2 million" or "if your game doesn't have Unreal-level graphics, you might as well not try." These folks may not be in the same dire straits as the hundreds or thousands of small studios living off the good graces of various publishers (seeing their game in a box on the shelves but never seeing a dollar past their initial advances), but they have totally bought into the BigGameCo view of the industry and the marketplace.

And then there's a curious, small but growing group of developers like we find here (or again, on the ASP boards). Many of us have finished a game or two; those who haven't are at least clear about ther goals (hobbyist vs. full-time, amateur vs. professional) and don't see any greater honor or coolness in one over the other: what matters is that you know what you're about. Few of us, I suspect, are contemplating games with a budget of over $100K -- probably more like $10-20K, and that with a lot of "sweat equity." Likewise, few if any of us are predicating our version of success on selling at retail, opting instead to explore the emerging waters of direct-sales (shareware, trialware, whatever). The people in this group also seem to have realized that cutting-edge graphics are not necessary for a game to be successful, and that what most folks in the other groups call the "mass market" really means "the core gamer market, plus a few hangers-on."

I've worked in the first, the retail BigGameCo group for several years. And I've got good friends in the feast-and-famine crowd, and have determined never to go that way. I've seen far too many (and continue to) from the wannabe group. That leaves the third group, the hit-driven sycophants who continue to apply yesterday's strategies to tomorrow's markets. And I'm more than happy to let them do so (which is why when I see interviews or panels (as at the last Siggraph) with people like Derek, I just smile). The last thing I want is for EA, Infogrames, Activision, NCSoft, or the like to realize that they are the lumbering Spanish Armada, and a small fleet of nimble, disciplined ships has sprung up around them. But maybe that analogy is flawed too: I don't mean to suggest that I want to bring down those companies; not by any means. I just want them to stay secure in their 36 month, $2-5M development cycles, their byzantine internal politics, and their wrangling with distributors and retailers, while I and those like me -- the real indies, IMO -- quietly make great games and a solid living.

Bravo! Nicely said.

I think we should think of this as a battle to take over the retail market. Think about it, there's a thing going to explode here. Half of you guys have already been in the retail business, so why not when you start really making the money think about the move into the retail market, but with the view of indies.

What this would do is give us indies a chance at seeing our stuff on store shelves, it would give you guys alot of good money, and you don't have to play by the politics of other big companies.

Some of the "wannabe's" would actually turn into people who finish games because they would actually get a chance on store shelves (eventually).

I mean think of it, the shareware stuff was really big in the late 80's to early 90's because we had bbs's (which kind of got big), and then when the internet came popular (and available)... then about mid-90's the technology built up and the games became stale and the market became stale (because of so many clones, and so many amateur programmers)... And then because of the retail market sitting there so long, that some of you guys left.

So because of this we're on the virge of something REALLY big, i mean epic proportions here, so why not prepare for it?

I'm not so sure that domination of the retail market is the way to go. Often people compare the games industry to the film industry, but I think that really only applies to the retail game market. I think the indie game market is undergoing a renaissance and when it emerges, it's not going to look like Hollywood and probably won't even really compete with the retail market. Instead, I think it will be more aptly compared to the book publishing market which, though not exactly healthy, at least has more publishers than Hollywood has studios. And, though movie-goers read books and book-lovers go to movies, the two markets do not directly compete with each other. Authors of books don't set out to write books that will compete with Hollywood's products because that wouldn't work; likewise, indie games shouldn't try to compete with retail games because they're in two different markets. And now I'll put this tortured analogy to rest and go to sleep myself. :)

Uhfgood,

The point isn't so much as to move into the Retail world as it is to focus on the future online or elsewhere.

If some of us we're to make the "indie" retail publisher group, then we would become the monsters. It's just bizness. If you want to be in the freakshow, you need to be a freak :) If you don't want to be a freak thats perfectly okay just make a new show, but maybe that new how isn't Retail at all or maybe it's some new way of looking at retail in ways they don't see. Who knows.

Listening to a retail publisher talk an ICG it's about filling SKUs. They've honed their skill to try to make as much money as they think they can. That's what they are supposed to do, but it's a violent and cold hearted place to be. There is no love of games, it's make us money or get they hell out. And I undertand that, I just don't enjoy the frame of mind and don't think I would want to live life that way. Our stay on the planet is just too short.

Now instead of playing in thier sandbox, look for other ways to play, in new less charted sandboxes. Geheeh, think outside the Sandbox :)

Do you really want to follow in the footsteps of these folks, becoming what you don't like?

Cut your own path through the jungle and find the treasure that's out there. All of us as fellow adventurers will help each other out when we can lend some advice.

One interesting thing about comparing film to games is that they are both under the game situation.

Being and indie in either is changing. the Internet is just as much helping new filmakers as it is helping software developers.

It's a whole new world that's slowly maturing and isn't finished yet for a long shot. The internet is a paradigm in the way the world sends and retrieves information.

You brought up the book sellers, what's interesting is that anyone and their grandma can become a bookseller at Amazon now. Or Ebay, is this the gradual fall of retail. Is this perhaps the end of an era for at least IP.

I often buy at Amazon since it's more convenient that going to the bookstore only to find they don't have what I want. Amazon is not a indie.... but probably it's the future of commerce or a significant portion of it. Yet, the little guys will still be only a few clicks of a mouse away.

So I guess what I was getting at was that there are things in play that make the situation now historical as people are more and more becomeing connected and things will never be the same as that weaves it's way into the fabric of society.

Personally I think getting into retail would be a step backwards. I saw my first game published on retail shelves in 1994... a pack of four small arcade-style games for Windows 3.1. I could walk into any local retail store and usually find at least one copy. The first time I saw this, I held the box and thought "Wow... this is cool." Of course I moved the box to a more prominent location before I left. :)

Later I saw the box(es) moved to the bargain bin. That was a little less cool. Then they were gone, never to appear on store shelves again. That was less cool again. Then I got over $20K in royalties checks... very cool once again. But I was shorted $6500... getting uncool now. Then the company went out of business permanently. Bye bye, cool!

The coolness factor of seeing your game on store shelves is very fleeting. My heart wouldn't skip a beat over it today. Instead I get more excited about receiving a gold master build from a developer, perhaps having the game live on the site the next day, seeing that first sale come in within an hour, the money in our bank account 1-2 days later, and a royalty check on its way to the developer the following month. To me that's a lot more cool.

There are so many juicy opportunities online right now that I wouldn't start looking towards retail until I've squeezed all that juice first. Before messing with retail, we're likely to expand into other platforms (especially the Mac) and into localization (starting with German and French) -- just tackling these markets properly will take years. My biggest challenge isn't finding new opportunities -- it's prioritizing and triaging the opportunities we already have in front of us and keeping us from growing too quickly. Going retail would be way too risky for us... more of a gamble than a wise investment.

I do believe that as awareness of the secondary market (indie online distribution) for games becomes more and more visible there will be increasing amounts of money to be made. A number of things could happen, indies who have been doing business for a while and have games generating a nice sustainable income will be able to develop increasingly more sophisticated games. Not every one of course, but those who have ambition to do so. I think we may get to a point where titles like these actually start cannibalizing sales from retail titles. Start appearing in gaming magazines, etc.

At that point the retail industry will likely start seriously considering the way we do business and start moving into our space. They have a lot of money and power, but they also have a track record of stupidity, with some solid experienced Indie publishers and developers in the field I think our chances of holding our own against them are quite good.

The thing about Derek Smart and why he is basically considered a joke within the "industry" is more than pointed out if you'd actually tried to play any of his games.

I went into a rant about Peter Molyneux, but decided against. :)

After having slogged through a bunch of releases in the "retail" part of the games "industry" Ive come to the same conclusion as many other people, i.e. the publisher funding model is completely and utterly broken.

Whoever said that accountants and salesmen (which effectively make up 99% of a publishers staff) were the best to judge games quality and suitability??

Ive always likened this industry to the music biz. Having a multi-tiered approach, where the old dinosaurs (the real BIG old timers) are still around producing huge amounts of money. Then there are the usual pop-idol like manufactured groups (elixir, ion storm).

Then there are individuals who manage to be "celebrities" whilst not really delivering anything (lets say PM).

Finally, there are the rest, indie labels, gigging bands, studio musicians, cover artists etc.

There is always a wealth of opportunity, at the high end its harder because you have to live with the likes of sony and the big boy publishers. But there's always the professional who simply makes a living from regular work, or the ones that manage to get a great following together over years of hard work.

I guess I hope to achieve the last one, over years get a nice following of people who I have direct contact with.

Phil.

Good Morning folks,

Lets get started shall we?

First of all, if its one thing that I hate the most, its people who have an opinion about everything and try to pass of fiction, conjecture and voodoo as facts. Anyone on the Net can come to a board, anon, and post any odd rubbish they bloody well feel like. Why? Well (a) because they can (b) the anonymity of this medium is carte blanche to behave badly, slag others off and post any manner of rubbish.

It is this very same premise that is causing so may court cases filed for libel and slander to be won and consistently putting a spotlight on this very medium that was supposed to spawn the exchange of ideas and whatnot.

That said, yesterday I received an email from a total stranger, pointing me to this thread. As I did in this two page thread (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=38389#38389) over on QT3A (where Dan gracefully decided to spew the same unfounded rhetoric he did in this thread) I will post below my email response to the stranger and then move on to something worthy of further discussion. Feel free to flame me all you want - it won't make one bit of difference from where I'm sitting. I'm not looking for a fight, but sometimes - no matter how much you resist - you just have to put some people in their place and let them go have a good cry about it. Me? I'll have another coffee.


Hi,

Larry and thanks for the link.

After reading the thread (http://www.dexterity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=315) - with the exception of Steve's post, I don't think that taking the time to register in order to post is worthy of my time nor effort. I am not interested in sharing anything with a bunch of wankers who have NO idea what they're talking about or who only wish to misinterprete and distort my verse without cause nor conscience.

But thats the Net for you I suppose. Rather than dwell on what people say online, I should probably go out in a search of a cure for world hunger. Or perhaps lobby for trolls to get the virtual death penalty - or something equally worthwhile.

As for the interview on Canadian Gamer (and the recent one over here (http://www.gamescreenshots.com/showviews.asp?view_id=18)), it is reflective of other interviews (www.3000ad.com/reviews/index.shtml) that I have done - including the CGW cover story of 2001 (which also talks about the Take 2 farce). I say what I bloody well feel like - and if someone doesn't like it - well then, they are welcome to kiss my independently wealthy and successful indie @ss.

I just love it when people who have nothing - or very little - to show for their time and existence, take it upon themselves to critique others - usually those who are way out of their league. But thats human nature I suppose and everyone has an opinion.

cheers

ps: I'm not sure if thats Steve's email address. If not, please forward this email to him for me.

>>
>>At 01:59 PM 1/4/2003, you wrote:
>>
>>You might find this discussion interesting;

>>http://www.dexterity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=315


As to the merits of my commitment to indies, that QT3A thread above - and indeed my post to Dan in the aforementioned thread - already outlines my stance and I need not repeat it here.

Originally posted by zoombapup
The thing about Derek Smart and why he is basically considered a joke within the "industry" is more than pointed out if you'd actually tried to play any of his games.

Phil,

considering that this is your first post to the board, my guess is you got wind of this thread (like White on rice) and decided to jump in, feet first - by attacking me.

I have no idea who you are (when someone calls himself a developer, then posts - seemingly anon - thats always a Red flag) or which of my games you have actually played, but the fact that you even posted the above, is a sordid and clear indication of just how clueless you are and willing to attack me apparently because judging by the first few posts in this thread, you think it makes you one of the boys.

I've got news for you. You're pissing on the wrong lawn.

This morning I spent almost an hour reading some of the choice threads around here, before deciding to register in order to post. As such, unlike you, I have a clear indication of the type of people who post here and I it is highly unlikely that you'd find the mob mentality you think is prevalent here.

Since you made this about me, lets get some things straight :

I have single-handedly released three games into the retail channel. The first two games BC3K (Take Two, 1996) and BC3K v2.0 (Interplay, 1998), released by big name publishers.

Despite the Take Two mishap, even BC3K made money (it accounte for about 14% of Take Two's revenue at the time of their SEC filing to go public (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/946581/0000891554-98-000123.txt)).

Interplay's release was an unprecedented success because we did not anticipate that a DOS game in a WIN9x industry climate, would do well. It did. Selling more units that most games released in the same 1999-2000 period. By the time it stopped selling, it had already crossed the 100K unit mark and is one of very few Interplay titles to have ever turned a profit.

Those sales figures and income stream alone, helped fund the third title in the series, BCM (3000AD Inc, 2001) which was signed exclusively by EB (www.3000ad.com/sales/index.shtml), the #1 dedicated games retailer in the US based on the strengths of the predecessors.

If I never had to sign another publishing deal in my life, I can always release my games through EB, simply by picking up the phone and making one single phone call.

The upcoming BCM Gold and BCG (the fourth Battlecruiser title and true sequel to BCM) titles, including an unnamed XBox title, have been signed by another big name publisher. You've probably read the press release and the recent interviews (www.3000ad.com/gnn/index.shtml) on this - so, I'm not going to repeat them.

No publisher or retailer signs titles these days - especially not indie titles - without a history, good sales, install base or withou the game having merit.

The fact that I can up and make my own decisions, design and develop my games - all on my own - then deciding how I want them sold, is not something that a lot of indies can do. It takes guts, experience, dedication and a good product to match.

Thats the story of my games.

You obviously do not own ANY of games, nor have any idea how many units they've sold nor how any were received. In fact, the reviews for BCM (www.3000ad.com/reviews/index.shtml) alone, were the highest ever for a BC title - and far exceed that of many, many, many games released between 2001 and now.

Given the above facts, you are in absolutely NO position to debate anything related to me nor my products.

As to me being a joke in the industry. Yeah, I'm a right laughing stock. Yet, I'm probably one of very few industry people who actually knows the right people, gets things done and have a lot more alliances than probably any other indie in the gaming industry. Period. If that makes me the joke of the industry, trust me, I'd make sure I stick to what I'm doing so that I don't lose that monicker.

You must think that because you and your faceless friends can get together in a forum or chat channel and slag me off at will and on a whim, lends credibility to your inference of me being a joke or whatever you choose to call me on that day. I've got news for you. The joke's on you and your friends who have nothing better to do but to troll, libel, character assassinate and make false statements about someone you do not know and who, on any given day, won't even speak to you in a room full of people. Only the Net brings me anyone near people of your ilk.

I can come up with an anon alias, call you gay, post that you beat your dog, smack your wife or pee in the neighbor's lawn. And all you can do is either ignore me or spend the rest of your life defending yourself and trying to prove a negative. I know one person who has an entire website dedicated to doing just that. And what good has that done? What difference has it made to my industry career and indeed my games and fanbase that pays to play said games? Zilch.

I am a very outspoken person and I don't take crap from anyone. Never have. Never will. I am firmly committed to what I choose to do and my mistakes and/or faults are mine own. Being in the limelight - as I constantly am - is always a recipe for the attraction of admirers, supporters and detractors alike. In my earlier years, I didn't quite understand how to respond to this fame either way - but as I grew older, one thing dawned on me. And that is, I don't have to go to war in order to win a battle, nor do I have to prove anything to anyone. I can win any/all battles by doing exactly what I set out to do and without having to prove anything to anyone. At all. Each time I succeed at something I embark on, it drives a stake into the hearts of those who would otherwise seek to character assassinate and libel me. And given my history, I've proven this time and time again, come hail or sunshine.

Throughout the years, I have learned a valuable lesson in dealing with people like you - and its that, I don't have to play to win nor do I have to worry about losing - because no matter how you look at it, no matter what you do, as long as I stick to my guns and do/say whatever I choose to, guess what? I win.

cheers

It seems as if my previous post exceed the 10000 character limit, so I had to cut off this portion of it. It is as follows...

My apologies to rest of you, and indeed to Steve, for this being the tone of my very first post here. Until I got that very first email from Larry, I never even knew of this site's existence. Assuming that I am welcome here, I will, from time to time, share my experiences of being an indie, as I do in the few forums that I frequent.

with the exception of the recent zoombapup post, after the first 9 posts in this thread, it ceased to be about you and about different perspectives on selling games.

That said, I appreciate your position. I hadn't herd of you until I followed a link to the canadiangamer interview off blues news. I had no vested relationship with you so my criticisms were my honest perceptions of your words, not an attempt to start a flame war, or bring you down.

The same is true of my two posts in the quartertothree forums. What I wrote there reflected how what you wrote made me feel. I am entitled to my feelings aren’t I? I went into painstaking detail to describe how and what you said offended me and even some background about me so that you might better understand where I was coming from. To this you responded with "I have no idea what you're going on about", called me names, and implied that you hated me and I was a fool. In most circles this is concidered bad form when someone tells you how they feel.

As you state, you have a wealth of experience and have been an indie longer then anyone else I know. I am willing to overlook the bad turn of events in the quartertothree thread and honestly welcome you to the dexterity forums. I think you represent a perspective that many of us here are ignorant of and despite some rough edges on your character, I think you may have some valuable insight to share.

Originally posted by Dan MacDonald
As you state, you have a wealth of experience and have been an indie longer then anyone else I know. I am willing to overlook the bad turn of events in the quartertothree thread and honestly welcome you to the dexterity forums. I think you represent a perspective that many of us here are ignorant of and despite some rough edges on your character, I think you may have some valuable insight to share.

Very well then, thats settled I think. ;)

That said, while I read your commentary on QT3A and noted them, I didn't want to prolong an argument, nor did I find it necessary to engage in further time wasting rhetoric. I accepted your position of same, hence my short respone to your reply - which I thought was the end of that.

Come to think of it, getting on the wrong foot with me (at least I think thats what it is) is exactly the result of people misrepresenting me or not understanding me. The fact that you had no idea who I was - but found it necessary to address me here and on a forum I frequent, as you did, is the kind of action that spawns flame wars and pointless time wasting diatribes. If you read your first post here - then compare to your first QT3A post - I dunno - but to me, it seemed as if you were crying out for a righteous roasting. While I didn't take the bait, my comment on QT3A - while not entirely amicable (I wasn't out to make friends with someone who starts off by insulting and misrepresenting me. I'm a sinner not a saint) - was not intended to spark a flame war, even though you fired the first shot. Your second QT3A post was a bit more explanatory than inflammatory; as such, I responded in kind.

Fact is, I don't go out of my way to engage people in pointless rhetoric nor flames - which is why I try as best as I can to get my point across - usually with unexpected results.

Now thats out of the way, I suppose we can talk about other things, going forward.

Derek,

As much as I dont really care what you think about me, my being "anonymous" has nothing to do with what I posted.

I'm afraid when I speak to people who i know in the industry, you ARE considered a bit of a joke.

Having taken the time to read back on several posts (a year or two ago this is) and having read several of your replies to different people, I found nothing to argue with the position that in fact, you do kind of deserve the label.

Thing is, you open yourself up for ridicule by being so completely and utterly over the top in your responses.

1 Line.. does it hurt you THAT much that someone posts 1 line?

I know the history of sales for the BC stuff, Ive read your website, I was actually hoping to find someone who could point the way to successful "indie" development.

Frankly, even if you'd sold a billion copies of BC, I still say the BC stuff I saw was laughable. Maybe youve managed to produce something good since then, I really have no interest.

Youre right in that I was thinking too much in the mob mentality, but i guess thats part of trying to be social. But really, does my post deserve such a response?

Maybe you should learn to let it all go. Maybe I should learn that you arent really a subject worth talking about.

Phil.

I guess seeing as was pointed out by Derek, my first post may have looked like a troll, I'll get it straight.

I'm not interested in DS, or have any wish to provoke anything further with him.

I AM interested in indie development. I've not really got enough time to post regularly here, but hopefully what I do will provoke better reactions than my first post.

Now read my new thread!

Phil.

First of all, Derek, welcome! It's always nice to have other indies join in and share their wisdom.

Secondly... for everyone, there are plenty of places on the net that will tolerate flame wars and unconstructive criticism. This isn't one of them.

This board assumes a community based on mutual respect, sharing knowledge, and helping each other succeed. Open debate and discussion and a variety of different viewpoints are absolutely welcome, as long as the line of disrespect towards other members isn't crossed. Anyone who shares this goal will find a very helpful and encouraging community here. Anyone who strives to detract from these goals will eventually end up banned.

I apologize to anyone who feels they've been offended by anything posted here. I've decided not to delete any posts or close the thread at this time, but if anything further disrepectful is posted, I will.

If anyone feels they need to continue debating unconstructively, you're free to take it to private email, or use this board's private messaging feature. If you want to continue posting here, please do so with good purpose.

I'm interested to know, Derek, if you feel that the retail market is absolutely essential to your success? Given that you employ mostly contract labor I can't imagine that your production overhead is so high that you would be required to buy into the hit driven side of the industry. Do you think it would be possible for you to succeed through strictly on-line sales?

BTW, congrats on the Dreamcatcher deal. I have a former co-worker who's doing business with them (he worked on The Crystal Key adventure game - stop laughing!) and apparently they are a good group of people.

---

My opinion is that the very nature of the mainstream video game industry is what provides opportunities for indie developers. To use film as a comparison (although I realise they are completely different) the reason films like "The Blair Witch Project" and "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" can be such smash successes is because the hit driven nature of the industry produces so much garbage that audiences are willing to jump on anything that feels fresh and unique. Why has "The Sims" done so much better than the competition (despite being a crap game IMO)?

I'm convinced the PC games industry will eventually go on-line retail as there have already been experiments in that direction. Why bribe Electronics Boutique for shelf space when you already have a successful brand that gamers will seek out? All it will take is for a company like Blizzard to offer up the next Warcraft or Starcraft as download-only for people to realise the potential. No packaging, no printing of manuals, no CD duplication - just profit. Especially when they charge almost the same amount (saving you maybe $10) for the download as they do for the retail despite incurring no duplication costs!

Frankly whenever a gaming magazine decrees the "end of PC gaming" or Blizzard announces the next Starcraft game will be X-Box only I give a little cheer. It just means more market and more opportunity for the rest of us. And if the mainstream industry were to go entirely on-line sales then that would inevitably open up old fashioned retail opportunities for indie developers.

Thanks for stepping in, Steve. I have been very thankful that these forums have stayed mature and free from the nastiness that is common elsewhere.




EDIT - being nice

I think its worth pointing out that Derek has definitely got the hang of one thing that most of us haven't:

He has made sure people know who he is.

I bet its easier for him to get people to work for him, return his calls and emails etc, because he is 'known in the industry'
Its like the dilbert cartoon where he brings a company to bankruptcy but finds it makes him more employable because people know who he is.
Ive worked with some of the most arrogant people in the business, and although their public persona sometimes grates, everyone knows who they are, and they always seem to be doing very well...

Just thought Id point it out, I dont want to be dragged into this boards first flame war!

I didnt know who Derek Smart was before the start of this thread. I also think he doesnt deserve the flames thrown at him. We may have already lost a successful indie developer from contributing here. Why are we selective in acknowledging an indie developer's success? So what if he has succeeded by going retail/publisher. I suspect many developers on this board have been unsuccessful in retail and selling online seems their route to exact revenge. Is this jealousy over Derek Smart's success?

My personal definition of an indie developer is someone who has a vision and doesnt compromise in making it a reality. Whatever method he takes to achieve it is irrelevant to me.

Hope Derek continues to stay on this forum and contributes his thoughts. I for one will ready anybody's thoughts - whether wannabe or expert. All information is gold to me.

Happy new year!

That he went retail is not why people dislike him. I don't think that anyone here would begrudge anyone for going retail.

Originally posted by Derek Smart [3000AD]

Come to think of it, getting on the wrong foot with me (at least I think thats what it is) is exactly the result of people misrepresenting me or not understanding me.

Yeah, I had to step out this morning and I was thinking a lot about what transpired. I feel very strongly about finding the truth in things, both in myself and others. In looking at my own behavior I find it slightly hypocritical that I offer to forgo a rough start with you without admitting and apologizing for the part I had in it.

I was offended and upset and my pride in my beliefs and my desire to publicly expose them got the better of me. In retrospect I probably did mis-understand you, you weren’t trying to deride other indies, just make a point about the industry and perhaps used some amplified language to make your point.

All the same your point was a commentary on the industry not to antagonize me, yet I assumed that was your general intention and responded in kind. I should have sent you my thoughts privately and much of this could have been avoided. In the end I think I’ve learned (relearned?) a valuable lesson about forum etiquette.

There is some good though, you discovered our little corner of the world which you were previously unaware of, I think there can be some profit had here if we take the opportunity to understand each others perspectives and experiences and discuss them as civil human beings.

In short, I’m sorry I criticized you publicly and instigated this whole thing.

All the best..

Now that the personal attacks are over, I'll share my piece of the 3.14 on the Retail and Shareware/Internet Distribution discussion.

Statistically speaking, Retail Game Distribution Revenue is increasing in a linear fashion. It's hasn't suddenly doubled or tripled in a single recent year.

Unfortunately, there are no estimates for Online Game Distribution Revenue. Every time I look at the news though, online retailers (like amazon) are dramatically increasing there revenue(s) at a much more aggressive rate then there non-virtual competitors. If more people will buy books and clothes online over the next ten years, won't they buy games too?

Considering the slow rate at which Traditional Game Publishers are moving to online distribution, I think that over the next decade, there's going to be a large demand for games to be distributed online. I intend to help fill that demand ;)

Originally posted by alchemist
Lots of great comments in this thread.
...
And then there's a curious, small but growing group of developers like we find here (or again, on the ASP boards). Many of us have finished a game or two; those who haven't are at least clear about ther goals (hobbyist vs. full-time, amateur vs. professional) and don't see any greater honor or coolness in one over the other: what matters is that you know what you're about. Few of us, I suspect, are contemplating games with a budget of over $100K -- probably more like $10-20K, and that with a lot of "sweat equity." Likewise, few if any of us are predicating our version of success on selling at retail, opting instead to explore the emerging waters of direct-sales (shareware, trialware, whatever). The people in this group also seem to have realized that cutting-edge graphics are not necessary for a game to be successful, and that what most folks in the other groups call the "mass market" really means "the core gamer market, plus a few hangers-on."
...
The last thing I want is for EA, Infogrames, Activision, NCSoft, or the like to realize that they are the lumbering Spanish Armada, and a small fleet of nimble, disciplined ships has sprung up around them.

Good comments, alchemist.

I don't know who Derek Smart is, but he was being interviewed and in an interview you are *supposed* to talk about yourself.

The other issues brought up in this thread are interesting. I've had a lot of dealing with retail game companies over the years and I have to say I don't have much regard for them. I've never had the really bad experience that some people have had (except for a game that never got released that I spent a lot of time on - I lost opportunity to do something else with that time). But basically they just don't understand the broader market of casual game players, they are stuck making games that appeal to exactly the same people over and over again, with the result that when you walk into a store there are a lot of games for the hard core action gamer and not much for anybody else.

What always gets me when reading game developer forums like GameDev.net is how all the focus is on trying to get a retail publisher instead of marketing it yourself. The small developer is just going to have such a hard time making any money from retail. So little of the amount paid for the game actually goes to the developer, most goes to the retail store, the distributor, and the publisher.

The small developer is just so much better off selling direct, especially if he/she has any talent for marketing at all. I make far, far more money selling shareware than I ever could if I had tried starting out with a publisher. Actually, I make enough for a nice living from retail alone, but that money only exists because of the shareware. If you become successful in shareware, the retail publishers will come to you, and then you can make a little extra ("found money", I call it). But I never rely on the retail money for anything.

If you sell yourself, you're in complete control of how well you do. If you have a publisher, you are at the mercy of how good they are. Most of them aren't very good, so you're chances are poor. If you sell yourself, at least if it goes badly you have only yourself to blame.

I doubt those large retail gaming companies will ever figure out what's going on in the market outside their hit-driven mentality. They probably won't figure out that Grandma likes to play games too and there's a lot of money to be made in the puzzle, card and other simple genres, but just in case, let's not tell them, OK?

Originally posted by jaggu
I didnt know who Derek Smart was before the start of this thread. I also think he doesnt deserve the flames thrown at him. We may have already lost a successful indie developer from contributing here. Why are we selective in acknowledging an indie developer's success? So what if he has succeeded by going retail/publisher. I suspect many developers on this board have been unsuccessful in retail and selling online seems their route to exact revenge. Is this jealousy over Derek Smart's success?


I couldn't resist and have to interject some perspective here to this self-pitty. We have lost nothing! This is one of the most realistic and objective forums on online games marketing!

Consequently, the term of success is relative, what do you mean? If it means getting to retail, that is not such a big leap. It's quite easy to do with any complete average 3D game done and with a decent marketing theme, be it as budget or better. Lots of publishers out there you know.

Originally posted by goodsol
They probably won't figure out that Grandma likes to play games too and there's a lot of money to be made in the puzzle, card and other simple genres, but just in case, let's not tell them, OK?

A big A-MEN to that!

Keep it moving... Nothing to see here... Move along...

;)

WOW, we have big-guns all over the place! This board rox! :)