5. Collaboration
An integral part of developing with little resources is collaborating
with others who have the resources you need. Indies look for other developers
with a similar focus or that might be willing to collaborate or trade
in lieu of a more traditional business deal. Unrestrained by the clout
of commercial competition most developers actively participate in online
communities and share the most intimate details of their development
processes.
Sites like TIGSource and Indiegamer are both hotbeds for developer discussion
and collaboration along with many others. The desire for collaboration
can hurt as well as benefit, as passion and enthusiasm tend to be a
more fickle force than a paycheck.
The most successful collaborations
are centered on developers that share a very similar set of goals and
motivations. While there is plenty of pro-bono works in the independent
sector, it does also host many developers who contract out their services.
6. Consider less traditional
monetization methods
There could be more efficient ways to monetize your game other than
the traditional means. A game designed to be played for free could still
be monetized in a variety of different ways. Advertising, micropayments,
virtual item sales or even sell your game while it's still in development.
Similar to how the advent of Google’s AdWords revolutionized monetizing
content on the web, technology is providing alternate ways to make money
other than the traditional fixed-price for a box of goods model.
One example is a website run by Gene
Endrody, MaidMarian.com. He makes multiplayer 3d games using Shockwave
that players can access directly in their browser. Instead of charging
players directly to play the games, they are made free to play without
any restrictions.
By removing almost all barriers to playing his games,
MaidMarian.com attracts 1.5 million unique visitors a month, and up
to 4,000 concurrent users, which generates a comfortable amount of revenue
solely through advertisements on the site.
By the time Gene left his
role as a technical art director at Radical Entertainment to focus full
time on MaidMarian.com, he was already earning more than his day job
by attracting visitors to roam through his virtual worlds.
7. Redefine success
A game developed with a fraction of the resources of a blockbuster game
does not need to sell a blockbuster number of units to be merited a
financial success. Many independents don't spend resources trying to
develop features that will cater to the mass market. Often, they spend
their resources on what they feel is important for their game, and let
their target audience be gamers with the same tastes.
One case in point is Gish, which was made by developer Chronic Logic
who has been so open as to share their sales stats. The figures show an approximate
total income of $121,000, an amount which might be a drop in the bucket
to many larger game studios. But to a team of 3 developers who took
only 6 months to make the game and whose budget (not including time)
was only $5,700, the amount warrants enough of a success for a sequel.
That does not mean indies never
pull the big bucks. RuneScape
is a java-based MMORPG created by brothers Andrew and Paul Gower. After
getting a basic version of the game operating as a project during university,
they implemented an optional membership service that provided paying
players with access to additional areas, quests, and items. The players
who don't pay are still monetized by advertisements displayed above
the playing window.
To any developer looking at the game, it would jump
out as a game made with few resources. It doesn't have flashy graphics,
or a soundtrack specially recorded by a choir. The gameplay must ring
true with some segment of gamers, however -- today, Andrew Gower is
the 654th richest man in the UK.
|
As an owner of an Independant company, I find the biggest challenge to be balancing budget and content within short project timelines.
I'm not saying that all developers are taking this road but we may quickly see the path that is commonly taken by big wig publishers like EA to "push pretty graphics and people care less about the game play". I'm not stressing at all that a game with "all looks and no brains" will win Game of the Year but we see this trend every time another eyegasmic game comes out and gets an 8/10 score where it otherwise would have gotten a 5/10.
I'm only pleading that developers tread lightly and don't look to Big Brother for examples on how to tailor this young industry. If independent games grow to the production level of current AAA games then we may never again have the opportunity to see small upstarts creating successful products. There should be a real push on all ends to keep the Indie flavor alive and avoid put out "beautiful blond" games.
One thing I think you should have mentioned is that indie game developers should listen to the players more, especially about faults in the game. Too many times I've seen the attitude of "I'm a programmer, so I'm automatically a genius game designer" or "You don't know programming, therefore you couldn't possibly have anything worth listening to." I have tried playing dozens of indie games that suffered from fatal flaws, glaring omissions and obvious imbalance, and when I visit their websites I see many people commenting on these flaws in the forums, yet rarely do I ever see the indie game programmers address these issues. More often than not they just ignore everybody.
This is especially sad during beta testing. There have been several games that I participated in beta tests where all they were looking for was bug reports. Any and all comments about how to make the games more enjoyable were ignored. As a result they came out with well-programmed games that nobody played more than once.
And I can't tell you how many times game programmers have shut me down because I didn't use the right buzzwords or I suggested something that was different from the norm. I can see how this comes about, you work so hard on coding your brain defaults to a certain logic standard, I've seen this in artists and other people many times. But really, how can you come up with new and innovative games when you immediately shoot down concepts without even trying to think about the possibilities?
And as for asking for FPS from a racing game, that kind of off-kilter feedback comes with the territory, but if a large majority of your beta-testers and/or players ask for the same thing, then you should give it some thought. For instance, one game I beta tested a player suggested they replace all their confusing stats with just three main ones with subcategories that would be introduced slowly as the players advance. Considering how the game was structured this made a lot of sense and would have made the game a _lot_ easier to play, so most of us testers agreed with the suggestion even though it would have changed things significantly. They said "No" quite firmly and stated that the game was supposed to have large pages of confusing numbers so the players could "explore" and "discover" strategies on their own. Most of us couldn't even figure out how to play the game completely, much less discover strategies, so we dropped out and the game didn't even make it out of beta.