Once you significantly reduce the amount of resources you need to
develop a game, the number of opportunities to find different methods
of funding rise exponentially.
Mount
& Blade is a medieval
combat simulator/manager/role playing game. Developed by another husband
and wife team from Turkey, the game has developed an incredibly enthusiastic
community following. The game is in a constant state of development,
and while there is always a free demo -- players can purchase the full
game for a rising cost as the game develops more features. The earliest
of adopters might have gotten the game for as low as $6 where as the price of the most recent release
is $22.
Once you have purchased a license to the game you always have
access to the latest version. Amazingly, these developers have replaced
the role traditionally filled by game publishers with the gamers themselves.
As of this writing, it has even supported them enough to grow their
team to six full time developers along with a number of contractors.
It would be hard to imagine this method of operation being very viable
if the developers were not limiting the amount resources needed to support
development.
Unknown
Worlds Entertainment, an
independent company made up of two full time developers and a collection
of others spread around the world are working on sequel to their Sci-Fi
Shooter/RTS hybrid Natural Selection. In order to offset some
of their development costs, the team created a casual Sudoku game in
10 months (though they started selling a beta after 5).
Charlie Cleveland,
Game Director of Unknown Worlds, in a presentation at the 2007 GDC, admitted that creating the
game took more time away from their core development than planned, but
found bootstrapping through a casual game much more attractive than
pitching their main game to investors, writing business plans, or trying
to convince others to give them the resources.
9.
Get Personal
If you are developing something that strikes a chord with gamers,
the community surrounding your game can be a very powerful and free
(or cheap) resource. Put your fans in charge of marketing your game,
use them as moderators, allow them to create content.
Fraxy is a unique top down space shooter that consists
entirely of user-constructed boss battles. The game comes with a easy-to-use
editor that lets users create complex and unique boss machinations and then share them with the community for
everyone to play. By giving users a framework to be creative within,
instead of simply something authored and experienced once, Fraxy
is using its players as a resource to provide gameplay limited only
by people’s imaginations.
Kingdom
of Loathing is a dead
simple browser based parody MMO. In this satirical adventure game, the
hero is a stick figure which forges through zones like "The Orcish
Frat House" and "The Misspelled Cemetary" while battling
creatures such as "ferocious Sabre-Toothed Limes" and "Ninja
Snowmen".
The fuzzy personality of the game has proven to be a
hit with fans who have grown the game to over 1.4 million accounts registered, through not much else
but word of mouth. There is a large and active forum community surrounding
the game as well with over 57,000 forum users discussing gameplay, helping
others, participating in contests or posting fan artwork.
There is such a sense of community
around this game that players have created a 24/7 internet radio station,
with DJ-hosted music shows as well as discussion segments about the
game that often play host to the developers. Kingdom of Loathing
is free to play, however there are opportunities to "donate"
and in return receive special items which are very useful inside the
game.
According to Wired, a sizeable number of players choose to donate,
"the game has earned enough in donations (its only source of revenue)
for creator Zack 'Jick' Johnson to quit his day job and hire six employees
to help deal with bugs, servers, and the in-game economy. There's even
a black market on eBay where $1 buys about 480,000 units of the game's
currency -- hunks of meat."
In Conclusion
These may not be totally new concepts to many game developers, but there
are many misconceptions about what independent games are limited to
based on the method of their development.
Many developers assume that
there is a large insurmountable gap in between commercial and independent
games. On one side they see the big budget blockbusters and on the other
they see "match three" puzzle games, and assume that there
is a vast chasm in between where nothing can exist.
In reality, more
developers are staking out claims at various places in the middle every year. As technology marches forward and
access to the global community becomes more accessible, developers are
inevitably being given more chances to exist at new places in the market.
All professional game developers
should be aware of the growing independent games community. By taking
a look at Independent games, developers might find some inspiration
for solutions to the challenges they face. By the looks of things, you
might be bumping into more Independent games whether you are searching
for them or not.
My biggest concern for the independent development community is it's growth. I mean, the whole point is to stay small and nimble but it seems that this sub group under the game development umbrella is starting to make the same mistakes as it's bigger brother; Big Budget Games. Indie games have grown from simple ideas into a semi-pro activity; thus driving up the cost of development.
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.
Great article! Very well done. I especially appreciate your segment on player created content. Too many indie game developer lock their games up tight, then whine about how nobody plays the games more than a few times.
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.
Whoa there Paul. Don't place the blame on the programmers alone as there are plenty of cocky designers and artists working on indie projects too. I think that is a flaw of the team as a whole and we all know that it takes more than one to tango with game development anymore these days. But I do agree that it does often result in a failed game when developers don't listen to the voice of the people. Also keep in mind that if they are making a racing game and you suggest, "you should be able to get out of the car and shoot people FPS style" then you'll likely be dismissed.
I don't automatically blame just the programmers, it's just that several bad indie games I've tried had nothing _but_ a programmer or three or more, nobody else involved in crafting the game. They might have had an artist, but it was the programmers calling all the shots. And I've seen a few team efforts where everybody was so close to the project they completely overlooked glaring problems, yet ridiculed and insulted anyone who tried to point them out because they were professional programmers and we were just ignorant gamers. Serious ego problems, for sure.
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.
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.