New Rule

During the first session at GDX - a panel discussion with Tracy Fullerton, Greg Costikyan, Frank Lantz, and Eric Zimmerman - the moderator, Ian Bogost, made an interesting point during the debate over the question of the emerging indie scene. He commented that indie game developers seem to play two roles: the opposition and the minor leaguer. This comment struck me as particularly insightful, and an excellent frame of reference from which to consider the question of indie in the games industry.

In the former case, indie devs serve as the opposition, the idealistic, passionate counter-movement that stands for change and upheaval. These indie developers see something wrong with the mainstream AAA game industry and the games made by them, and they strike out on their own in order to bring alternative work to market, with the intent to prove a point or establish a dialogue about that problem. So-called “art games” could be categorized here, such as Passage of the works of Cindy Pearce or Tracy Fullerton. The games are deliberately unusual because they reflect the creed, hypothesis, or manifesto of the developer, and commercial success is not necessarily the prime objective of these studios; alternative sources of funding could be found here, such as grants and private investors and the like. This scene could be likened to underground music, modern art, or the indie film community.

In the latter case, indie devs serve as the so-called minor leagues - the companies and projects that wish they could play in the big AAA markets and have the multi-million dollar budgets, but who do not have access to that kind of funding. Many new startups, especially in the casual and mobile markets, could be categorized here. The game-makers view their humble indie studios as simply the beginning, with the ultimate goal of making it to the show and landing that huge Sony or Microsoft publishing deal that will admit them to the ranks of the the big names. While most indie startups fail, many of the minor-leaguer serve as excellent talent pools (just as they do in professional sports) for big studios looking to expand or replace their workforce.

The two models do not seem, to me, to be in opposition, but rather in symbiosis. Indie studios are by definition small, risky, and fueled by founder passion and sweat equity more than by ample funding. Most are short-lived, closing their doors less than five years after they opened. This high-octane production lifestyle means the indie devs need to think outside the box more than any other group of developers if they are going to survive. This can lead to some remarkable innovation and new gameplay paradigms, and indies pursue this unconventionality both as a creative vision and a model for business success. In that sense, the goals of the opposition and the minor leaguer are reconciled: “indie studios think different.” As long as this remains so, I believe the indie scene will remain strong in both camps.

Tags: The Industry //