Indie Games Question

Hey all. As part of a college course, I need to get some opinions on Indie games, and I reckon here is a good place to ask.

Do you think Indie games are better or worse than Triple A (big blockbuster) games, in terms of game-play, cost, and community communication, etc? Do you think the two types of games can share the game market, or is one going to dominate and why?

Thanks for taking time to do this.

I think they are considerably better.

I cant speak to 'communication' though because I dont care enough about 'communication' to know either way.

but the games are waaaay better, a lot more content, a lot more re-playability

this of course is my opinion based on experience playing both.

I should note that this has not always been true, its only been true post 2013 with the exception on only about 3 games prior to 2013

They are all just games at the end of the day. It's like saying games or games which is best?

no its not like that at all, just because you want it to be that way to make you feel good does not mean its actually that way...because its not.

if it was true nobody would be giving me shit about liking indie games in the first place.

I think for the most part independent or self-published games are far, far better than alleged AAA games.

Historically, the AAA label used to mean something; you'd find a great developer, throw money at them, and let them do their thing. These days, all it means is A.) expensive marketing, and B.) expensive production values...that is it. It has very little to do with quality, innovation, risk-taking, and having good fundamentals. Or gaming in general, really; when I see "AAA", I think "a non-gamer made an investment and expects a larger return. They don't care about the game".

Independent games lack only the production values and marketing campaigns of AAA games. In all other areas, I have found them to be vastly superior. They generally take more risks, which often comes with the benefit of have innovative new or refined gameplay mechanics. Instead of trying to have cutting edge visuals, they tend to work on art direction and general visual appeal, which I appreciate more. And, despite have smaller budgets, I often find their scope and "big picture" presentation to be far, far, far larger than a lot of AAA games.

Just because a game is "indie" it is not better, and just because a game is "AAA" it is not better. I just find the development to be quite different and I'd rather search for the diamonds in the rough, the wheat in the chaff, with all the independent games. I find that a better alternative to being told to buy a "AAA" game because so-and-so voice acted in it, or because I liked the Superbowl commercial they had, or because it sold 10 million copies.

In the end, it comes down to what appeals to you. Just make sure you actually have fun with the game because it's actually fun, and you're not being told to have fun because of what kind of game it is.

With that said, I've spent far more time with:

• Factorio
• Elite: Dangerous
• Grim Dawn
• Halcyon 6
• Kerbal Space Program (back before it was bought)
• Stellaris
• The Witcher 3
• Prison Architect
• Terraria
• Minecraft (again, before bought)

Than I have spent time with anything published by Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Bethesda, 2K Games, Take Two Interactive, and so forth.

Yeah it's like looking at Hershey's Chocolate Bar and a bar of Green and Black's 85% and going "Chocolate is chocolate!" and not caring.

Complete. Utter. Nonsense. The green and blacks is vastly superior in every way. Hesrshey's isn't even chocolate; they add a chemical wax-like substitute instead of cocoa butter to cut costs, use artificial ingredients, corn syrup instead of regular sugar, and so on. It has a terrible texture.

The green and blacks is quite literally just chocolate, and has all the right attributes as a result; starts to melt as soon as it touches your tongue, amazingly rich flavors that stem from the variety of compounds in natural cocoa, and so forth.

Now...contrary to what I said above, if suddenly Hershey changed their tune and also started making great chocolate, I'd change my tune. I'd say Hershey's is great! They learned from their mistakes and are making chocolate for the glory of chocolate, not greedy profit. Now we have great Hershey's, and great Green and Blacks!

All games are not just games any more than all chocolate is just chocolate. While you might subjectively prefer one or the other, some are objectively superior to others. While I respect people's rights to have a preference, if you start letting that preference turn into a fact in your mind, you're lost.

the thing is, if they are all 'just games' and that is the end of it.

then people should really stop giving me shit about so called 'crappy indie games'

EDIT: you seem to be somewhat open minded about your game choices, might I suggest you look into emperyion galactic survial, put aside any thoughts about me and just take a look.

@tryit: lol I have no "thoughts" about you, I tend to agree with you in most posts, if anything :D Though you do tend to get a little agitated at times :P haha.

I have Empyrion as well, pretty fun game. Had a steeper introductory curve to it, but once you get some tools it's a blast. Making my hover vehicle for the first time was incredibly rewarding.

Hate to say it but I'm pretty split down the middle on this one. I've played and reviewed a lot of indie games and I love how creative they are with their gameplay choices. The out-of-the-box thinking gets you ridiculous games like Gang Beasts or super minimized production titles like FTL. But the production brings some great stuff on the AAA side, as well. It's easy to knock EA but Battlefield, for example, is a fantastic concept is only made possible by the production values from how much money they get. And then you have the occasional gem like a Beyond Good & Evil or Batman: Arkham Asylum. Both sides offer things I like.

For cost? I'd say you can typically get more bang for the buck on indie games but I'd also say for all games, how you get them can vary this. For example, Humble Bundle or GOG or Steam sales.

As far as domination of the market, AAA likely always will. Just like with pop music, it's geared toward the lowest common denominator. That's the plus-side of indie games. They're not going to appeal to everyone and the smart developers know this so they make what they make.

cool.

beans

No one here can give you a definitive answer because it's impossible. It varies from project to project, and team by team.

I've bought and played many great Indie games and think the people in them are talented, but that doesn't mean AAA games or AA for that matter, don't have similar talent or superior, depending.

Indie has the advantage of development freedom, but usually have to release early, otherwise they'll have to put a house and property for sale just to manage costings. Indie is short for independent funding. And is the important part to remember.

Developers contracted or owned by publishers are getting far more funding than the average Indie developed game, at the cost of suits having a say for how the game should function, and how to handle/ manage content (DLC). Some developers funded by publishers demand creative control but it's far too few that get 100% the vision the team intended.

I much prefer AAA games myself but do enjoy the odd indie game here and there. There’s certainly room in the market for both types of games even though AAA games generally dominate the market.

What if this theory is right

AAA companies rely more on marketing dollars spent while indies spent all their money on development cost.

as such, even though AAA companies have tons of money to spend, they try not to deviate much from the marketing objective which is usually to keep it simple.

Marketing budget and team are a separate development process, and overall funding. Not the same people developing the game(s)

Though if you noted some marketing campaigns are more than double the development for certain games? You would be correct and has been noted by many Activision and EA projects. Destiny being the most note-worthy game to mention. However the money put towards these games are still exceedingly higher than the most of Independent titles.

From what I've read a certain AAA game I enjoyed this year had a development budget of 6Bil¥ (roughly over $53M) and this was not apparent of the marketing campaign for the game.

A high quality Indie game I can name the rough costing for is The Vagrant who O.T.K explained the overall development and future content costings are around 50K in US dollars. They have since found a publisher SakuraGames who is only putting expenses into advertising for the project as it left Early Access.

So, I suppose using these two examples, it's logical to believe even without marketing, (majority of) AAA games cost far more to develop.

Depends.

Indie games and AAA games can be amazing experiences in their own right, but differ in many ways. Indie games tend to offer more novel, artistically inclined games, but can't really match AAA games in areas like content density and polish, whereas AAA games tend to be larger, more fluid and technically impressive experiences, but many of them lack the same innovative, creative spark that indie games have.

No one is outright better and deserves to be heralded as such, as they both have their strengths and weakness that must be acknowledged when deciding what you prefer or abstain from preference.

Not sure I'd go as far as saying I outright prefer one over the other, but I am finding as I get older that I really appreciate the shorter, more streamlined/focused nature of Indie games in general. Some of my favourite games of this gen have been Indies (such as Inside, Hellblade, What Remains of Edith Finch, Tacoma etc).

I get just as much enjoyment out of a 2-3 hour Indie game like Inside, as I do out of a AAA blockbuster title with 100 hours of gameplay.

Personally I find the distinction very unnecessarry. I feel the same when people are discussing Indie movies vs. blockbusters. I can't say I have a favorite, I play a lot of games. I've played Indie-games that are better than some of my AAA-games and I've played bad Indie-games. I've played AAA-games that are horrible compared to some Indie-games. Techically No Man's Sky is an indie game but it's bigger than most AAA-titles.

And it's getting harder to destinguish between them. Is Minecraft still considered an Indie-game after it was purchased from Microsoft? It's still the same game, isn`t it?

To say I prefer AAA over Indie or vice versa is impossible for me. There are good/bad games on both sides. And it's getting harder to say which games are Indie or not.

I believe there is a huge difference between AAA and indie games. In terms of communnication, Triple A marketing can go into physical shops, but not indie games. Indie games can risk a little bit more in terms of narrative, concept and gameplay, because of the badge. Triple A has very bigs amounts of money behind, and that's the reason they have much more responsibility. Indie Games need to find out how to earn enough money in order to set themselfs on sale.

My experience tells me every game has its owns nature to be loved. But finally it all depends on your taste. I love writing indie games because companies give me the freedom to write alternative narratives for the games. But I must admit some Triple A games freak me out!

Thanks for the thread!

actually not completely true.

when they say 'this game cost 10 million dollars' they are almost always counting the marketing cost as well.

yes they are different departments, yes the accounting books seperate the two but the PR for the game does not.

@tryit: Depending on how vocal the development team is towards the community, they'll break down how much goes towards funding the game and how much the marketing team has for advertising. Regardless they're two separate departments.

From Software (Hidetaka Miyazaki san) for example has even been very vocal on why they self publish games themselves in Japan, but not anywhere else worldwide. And how it doesn't affect the development process of the games they make. Though have suggested some marketing campaigns damage the games they develop intent, and overall brand due to mistranslated information.

As my original message (#10) states, it varies from project to project and developer to developer. As it's illogical to use a basis on speculation.

We know companies like EA and Activision commonly link both marketing budget and development costing to brag about how much games cost. But many of these projects have been looked into and its become public actually how much many of these games cost eventually.

can you please link me some examples of this, my understanding is that this does not happen, I am open to seeing evidence that might suggest I am incorrect.

@tryit: At the top of my head, best I can do from memory is recommend looking up last years TGS and Monster Hunter: World.

Ryozo Tsujimoto and Yuya Tokuda san didn't just break down the overall cost of the game, they explained the costing of rendering monsters into HD, the animators fees, etc. It was amazing information. One of the reasons the MH team did this was to compare the project to older games in the series. Would also say Japan in general are more open how games are made compared to say the US, and the funding behind them. As a big part of gaining financial stability in 2017-8 is coming from the gaming industry.

*I had a look for an older From Software interview about Dark Souls II that rang memory about costing to make games. It's being a pain to re find but if I come across it I'll edit this message and add below. Though if someone adds it before me? Or something similar, that would be most welcome.

that would not be breaking out marketing dollars spent SPECIFICALLY

I know its work but I would like to see evidence of a developer breaking out the marketing dollars SPECIFICALLY.

@tryit: As stated if I find a reliable link for exactly what you are after? I will provide, I know they exist. It would be easier just to link these development books of these the games I'm mentioning, but I don't think you want to buy to get the information. And they're in Japanese which probably doesn't help your curiosity?

As for asking "specifically" (bold caps doesn't help) as stated previously, From Software for example is self published in Japan so they don't have a marketing campaign as part the games budget till it's released in other regions. Evidence for this is simply on the JP website. In which you won't see a publisher logo in sight. Which again I don't think is exactly the information you're after.

*update* I had a good try but couldn't find the exact details you are after. Still think if someone is better at gathering data than me it wouldn't be too difficult because I know From Software and the Monster Hunter team commonly discuss costings of development and assume many other developers do as well.

ok I will look forward to such links.

just for your own benifit ensure that they would explictly state the marketing is not part of the figure or they would explictly state what the marketing dollars is.

breaking out various costs but not mentioning marketing dollars specifically would be a waste of your time.

I personally have never seen that done, I personally have been informed from multiple sources that typically when PR talks about the cost of the game they DO include Marketing as part of those dollars. I am willing to see that I am wrong, however thus far you have not provided me compelling reasons for me to think my understanding is incorrect.

the example you posted didnt even come close to my request

@tryit: Checking search engines from a year ago on stuff I've read and watched, if I can't find one for what I've read previously? Can't do more than that.

As for your exact request, I think the From Software link covers that in a vague manner, you're just asking for very narrow specifics. If they're self published and sell games purely on the website what marketing campaign do you think they have?

While we are on this subject of not providing information, as you're still determined stating marketing is apart of each games development regardless. If you want to provide links that strengthen your stance on the hypercritical that would be welcome likewise.

the specifics matter GREATLY

here is an example:

if I am a developer I say the following:

'on this 100 million dollar game, we spend 1 million on modeling, 2 million on coding, 4 million on licencing'

well that is very sexy...very nice...but it does NOT by any stretch of the imagination show that they are not putting in marketing cost to the final amount

@tryit:

the specifics matter GREATLY

here is an example:

if I am a developer I say the following:

'on this 100 million dollar game, we spend 1 million on modeling, 2 million on coding, 4 million on licencing'

well that is very sexy...very nice...but it does NOT by any stretch of the imagination show that they are not putting in marketing cost to the final amount

You could at least try not to be aggro for a change, I'm being if nothing formal to you (in this thread).

Regardless as updated above, couldn't find the exact details you are after from a gaming project in the time I spent. If something turns up on a more recent project, discussing costings, will link before this thread goes necro.

If not? it's unfortunate. Shame couldn't find anything in the hour searching, think finding my previous reads would have been rewarding for not just yourself but others interested in game development and the costs and cheap ways of certain modern techniques in development.

I understand its a lot of work and I understand if you are not inclined to sink hours into it, I get that, its is fine.

I think I am being reasonable when I explain in full honesty that

A. my understanding from multiple sources is different from your understanding

B. I am not just going to take your word on it without some evidence specific to the specific claim of specifically marketing.

so lets just move on if you dont want to do that, which is perfectly fine. but it gives you something to think about.

I think I am being plenty fair here.

you might want to consider the possibility that you are actually just mistaken and your memory interpreted a conversation about money being spent in certain areas to also contain marketing but that was not actually the case.

I don't expect anything from you other than not to be this disrespectful randomly in a thread that I've only been formal within a subject of apparent common interest.

you might want to consider the possibility that you are actually just mistaken and your memory interpreted a conversation about money being spent in certain areas to also contain marketing but that was not actually the case.

No, I have a good history for what I read and watch. It's only a bother that I can't find the links admittedly lol (hence why I'm commenting if anyone else is aware of the 2017 TGS).

Anyway my own words for this digging information was "if I come across it"; any research that isn't a buzz subject in gaming is both time consuming and difficult to its date and endless pages. And I knew the chances of me finding it was low without putting a lot of tie into the matter.

All while you send me messages here in full caps and provocative tone, it didn't seem encouraging me to continue does it?

If anything I'm getting the idea this is less about the subject or lack of evidence, and more on trying to start a fresh argument.

I get it dood.

We've had recent arguments/ disagreements in threads.

If this is simply a spite pock after our WoT rant? I won't bother continuing. When I could be contributing towards a more productive conversation in the GD forums.

I don’t play many indie games. One that comes to mind is A Hat in Time. Great game. But if I were to choose I do prefer Triple A games even though I’m not into more modern day gaming.

My opinion but from what I’ve known indie games, especially 3D platformers genre...can get hyped up to be great, but as soon as they’re released they’re a hit and miss.

I think this was the situation with The Last Tinker. I didn’t like the gameplay in that game personally. The walking animation was practically the main character just sliding across the ground. Plus from memory you couldn’t jump without the game wanting you to?

An example of a modern triple A game that I like would be The Last of Us or Uncharted.

Other than that, these days I’m going back to play classic JRPG’s. :)

so in your memory you explicit recall them explicitly stating the amount in MARKETING dollars, not something else, marketing dollars specifically?

@dragonofelder: After years of playing AAA games at last I only find funny Indie Games. Those guys are always innovating styles and mechanics so you can find it lots of awesome games.