State of Indie

[Fox12]

Ok preface I love indie gaming. I am overjoyed to see indies come to the forefront. To see so many people building things that I love. I love seeing that indies are helping to keep the industry vibrant and moving forward.

However I am wondering have we started to hit on a point of indie over saturation? Its great that we have so many unique niche games to choose from but when you become deeply involved in the indie game scene one of the first indications is you start to see so much repetition. Especially with all the "retro-ish" platformers and Rpgs. (again dont get me wrong I like these things too and youll take my Cthulhu saves the world over my cold dead hand)

Then as it progresses you come to realize there are "bridge simulators" and "Riverboat cargo deliver simulators", Even a game that virtualizes the 10th concentric circle of hell propagated with cube dwelling zombie hordes in call center simulators.

We also know that building games takes extensive work and effort. There are hundreds of thousands of game options available in fully developed games, Crowd funded projects from bygone industry heroes and obscure garage startups alike. When you really look the number of games being developed and the number of people involved with such development is beyond staggering.

So the questions are, Are we currently over saturated with Indie development? Would such effort be better utilized if the number of people working on indie projects could be corralled into focusing on slightly larger, more focused projects? Are we better off with this "exact niche" approach? What could indie development do to improve from here?

I don't really fear over saturation. I bought 10+ indie games on the Steam sell, and so far I love them. I just beat To the Moon, and I was highly impressed with the brilliance of the story. It wasn't perfect, and I could nit pick it, but it took on serious issue that affected me emotionally, and that's more than I can say about any David Cage game. The average Indie game is far better in quality than the average AAA title, so more Indie gaming is a plus. To be fair, I heavily research anything I buy to make sure it's decent quality, even if it's a two dollar Indie game on sale, so I don't have to shovel through the miles of mediocre Indie titles I'm sure exist. I would argue that I'm now playing more Indie titles than mainstream titles, which have begun to bore me (Oh no, I'm becoming a hipster...).

Contrary to popular belief, you can't have too much of a good thing, especially if it's Indie gaming or Batman, and if Indie gaming allows for more emotionally investing interactive experiences to combat the brown and grey military shooters, then amen to that. They're also cheaper, haha. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go see if Lone Survivor and Fez are worth all the fuss.

 

[Something Amyss]

The indie scene, eh? Well, uh... I like that it exists.

The retro thing is getting pretty old though. "Oh look, another fucking pixel-y platformer. Well colour me overjoyed! Way to push those boundaries with your indie freedom guys!"

Also, kinda over the many, many many attempts at "ironic" humour. Turns out a lot of folks aren't half as funny as they think they are.

Guess you just have to take the good with the bad. Y'know, like with the mainstream industry.

Agreed on all points. I'm tired of retro and irony, but as long as I can find me some games I like, the rest can be as retro and ironic as they want. Just like AAA can be as dudebro and shooty as they want.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

That would only really be "fair" if they somehow kept it at $90 after the final release. The whole point of kickstarter is that it's a way to raise funds for something, to get some seed money for a new project without needing to go the old venture capital route. It's kind of expected that eventually people are going to be able to get the final product at a different price than the initial backers did, since the initial backers were directly paying for the development, not just for the product itself. These guys are basically taking $90 of pure profit on every sale through Steam, since they were presumably already funded through kickstarter.

No. Last I checked the game was not fully released. What that $90 pays for is essentially the same early access that backers who paid $90+ during the kickstarter. The money goes into further development of the game till its completed. Essentially people that pay for early access are paying for the same thing that backers did during the kickstarter even though the kickstarter is over.

If the game was fully released and out then yeah you would have a point but so far as Im aware thats not the case. If that is the case then please post some form of evidence stating such

Really? They're buying into a kickstarter tier? From the Steam page? It's not possible. Seriously, it's a blatant moneygrab that they're spinning as "fairness." There's nothing wrong with overcharging, but spinning it as a positive is obnoxious. Especially because even on Kickstarter the "get the game" tier is usually somewhere between $10 and $20.

 

[lacktheknack]

The only thing that bothers me is that most indie games only need to be functional for everyone to start to praise it.
There are some good indie games but most of them arent really that special but apparently if its a game that shows any resemblence of fun then it deserves top score, I had a lot more fun in Newgrounds then a lot of said indie games.

How did "Thomas was Alone" get so much praise? Its basicly "start a level, narrator says something, finish puzzle, repeat" and the biggest problem here is that its just that, its a basic puzzle game that has a narrator telling a story even though there is nothing much to it other then to exist there, the game could be exactly the same without it. Its like going to play Sudoku and invent a story for all the numbers, its the exact same game but with a "story" behind it.

I just finished Thomas Was Alone... like, fifteen minutes ago.

And the reason people praise it is because the narrator not only told us a story about those squares, he told a damned good one with immense detail in characterization and organic relationship arcs. That's why people like it. Those rectangles were more human than most humans in games.

OT: I like indies, although their budget ceilings are pretty easy to hit. Still, even when they get derivative, they still tend to have interesting concepts and details.

 

[Windcaler]

Really? They're buying into a kickstarter tier? From the Steam page? It's not possible. Seriously, it's a blatant moneygrab that they're spinning as "fairness." There's nothing wrong with overcharging, but spinning it as a positive is obnoxious. Especially because even on Kickstarter the "get the game" tier is usually somewhere between $10 and $20.

Do you not understand what steam early access is? or how kickstarter works?

 

[lacktheknack]

That would only really be "fair" if they somehow kept it at $90 after the final release. The whole point of kickstarter is that it's a way to raise funds for something, to get some seed money for a new project without needing to go the old venture capital route. It's kind of expected that eventually people are going to be able to get the final product at a different price than the initial backers did, since the initial backers were directly paying for the development, not just for the product itself. These guys are basically taking $90 of pure profit on every sale through Steam, since they were presumably already funded through kickstarter.

No. Last I checked the game was not fully released. What that $90 pays for is essentially the same early access that backers who paid $90+ during the kickstarter. The money goes into further development of the game till its completed. Essentially people that pay for early access are paying for the same thing that backers did during the kickstarter even though the kickstarter is over.

If the game was fully released and out then yeah you would have a point but so far as Im aware thats not the case. If that is the case then please post some form of evidence stating such

Really? They're buying into a kickstarter tier? From the Steam page? It's not possible. Seriously, it's a blatant moneygrab that they're spinning as "fairness." There's nothing wrong with overcharging, but spinning it as a positive is obnoxious. Especially because even on Kickstarter the "get the game" tier is usually somewhere between $10 and $20.

Uhhhh... What do you mean not possible?

I mean, freaking InXile is doing Slackerbacker options as well.

https://torment.inxile-entertainment.com/store

See? Kickstarter's over, but that doesn't mean you're too late to be part of it.

Same with Star Citizen, Wasteland 2, and others.

If backers for Planetary Annihilation paid $90 for early access, then it's only right for slackerbackers to pay that much for the same privilege, or else you're kind of screwing over early backers.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Really? They're buying into a kickstarter tier? From the Steam page? It's not possible. Seriously, it's a blatant moneygrab that they're spinning as "fairness." There's nothing wrong with overcharging, but spinning it as a positive is obnoxious. Especially because even on Kickstarter the "get the game" tier is usually somewhere between $10 and $20.

Do you not understand what steam early access is? or how kickstarter works?

I understand perfectly, it's still ridiculous, considering how much they beat their goal by in the initial kickstarter. Hell, it'd be ridiculous anyway, since in any other kickstarter, $90 would be enough to get your name in the credits or something similarly exclusive, it wouldn't be the "early access to the game" tier.

snip

It's not possible because it's literally not possible to pay into a kickstarter through a Steam page.

As for the early access things, it's not screwing over the early backers. It's the nature of being an early adopter, you overpay for everything. Don't like it, don't fund something so danged early.

On a side note, these fantasy football ads in the captchas are getting annoying. Somehow I doubt there's much overlap between the users of this site and the kind of people who do fantasy football leagues. I know there's some overlap, but only because I know one or two people on this site have mentioned that they follow football because they enjoy the stats you get into in a fantasy league. In a thread where everyone else was saying they hated it.

 

[SouthernStar]

I don't know anything about indie games but when I look at them on XBLA their all minecraft clones. Probably a lot more uniqueness on the PC.

 

[lacktheknack]

It's not possible because it's literally not possible to pay into a kickstarter through a Steam page.

Move your brain OUT of the idea that they're contributing to the Kickstarter, and put it IN the idea that they're contributing as a Slackerbacker, which is different.

There, now you're oriented right.

As for the early access things, it's not screwing over the early backers. It's the nature of being an early adopter, you overpay for everything. Don't like it, don't fund something so danged early.

Alternatively, if you don't feel the early access is worth $90, you simply don't have to invest.

I like that they're showing a bit of respect to the early adopters by not dropping the bottom out of their prices right away. There's little worse than buying something and having it go for 75% off the next day. And anyhow, clearly a lot of people DO think it's worth the investment, seeing how they're paying for it.

As I've said before, and will continue to say, the product is exactly worth what you'll pay for it. Thus, your idea of what's "overpaying" is not the same as someone else's.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

It's not possible because it's literally not possible to pay into a kickstarter through a Steam page.

Move your brain OUT of the idea that they're contributing to the Kickstarter, and put it IN the idea that they're contributing as a Slackerbacker, which is different.

There, now you're oriented right.

As for the early access things, it's not screwing over the early backers. It's the nature of being an early adopter, you overpay for everything. Don't like it, don't fund something so danged early.

Alternatively, if you don't feel the early access is worth $90, you simply don't have to invest.

I like that they're showing a bit of respect to the early adopters by not dropping the bottom out of their prices right away. There's little worse than buying something and having it go for 75% off the next day. And anyhow, clearly a lot of people DO think it's worth the investment, seeing how they're paying for it.

As I've said before, and will continue to say, the product is exactly worth what you'll pay for it. Thus, your idea of what's "overpaying" is not the same as someone else's.

Let me put it this way: Kickstarter is seed money. You're not paying for access to a game, you're helping to fund its creation at a very early stage, with no promise that it will actually get made, just a promise that if it /does/ get made, you'll get the rewards for the tier you bought into. Steam Early Access is something totally different, it's a way for people who are really interested in a game that already has playable builds to buy a copy before it's actually finished, and to continue to get updates as they come out.

The problem here isn't with me not understanding how Kickstarter works, apparently you're the one whose not getting it, or getting Kickstarter but not getting Early Access.


Edit: Also, unfortunately other peoples' ideas of "overpaying" have an impact on me, because businesses will sell at whatever people will pay. Which means if enough fools have enough money to be easily parted from, people like me get left out in the cold. It's already happened with the obscenity that is the $60 AAA game.

 

[Bat Vader]

One thing that has been kinda bothering me with indie games is that I will see an indie game that looks interesting or coll on Steam get hyped for it but when I check out the page on Steam I see it is just a 2D platformer. That isn't bad. People can make the games they want but I am kinda disappointed that people aren't being more creative. An indie game that I love is Monster Loves You. No gameplay at all. Instead people play the game through decisions they make as their character and I love that. It feels like something new instead of something retro. Dinner Date is another indie game I enjoy. I like that I just control guy's subconscious as he waits. I want to see more indie games like that.

While it is a VN Katawa Shoujo is another indie project I enjoy. Does anyone know of any good point and click indie adventure games?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

One thing that has been kinda bothering me with indie games is that I will see an indie game that looks interesting or coll on Steam get hyped for it but when I check out the page on Steam I see it is just a 2D platformer. That isn't bad. People can make the games they want but I am kinda disappointed that people aren't being more creative. An indie game that I love is Monster Loves You. No gameplay at all. Instead people play the game through decisions they make as their character and I love that. It feels like something new instead of something retro. Dinner Date is another indie game I enjoy. I like that I just control guy's subconscious as he waits. I want to see more indie games like that.

While it is a VN Katawa Shoujo is another indie project I enjoy. Does anyone know of any good point and click indie adventure games?

Point and click adventure isn't really my genre, but it's one of the biggest ones for indie games, so there's a ton to choose from. If nothing else, Machinarium is one of those indie darlings. What little I played of it I enjoyed, and I really dislike the genre, so that's saying something.

 

[lacktheknack]

Let me put it this way: Kickstarter is seed money. You're not paying for access to a game, you're helping to fund its creation at a very early stage, with no promise that it will actually get made, just a promise that if it /does/ get made, you'll get the rewards for the tier you bought into. Steam Early Access is something totally different, it's a way for people who are really interested in a game that already has playable builds to buy a copy before it's actually finished, and to continue to get updates as they come out.

The problem here isn't with me not understanding how Kickstarter works, apparently you're the one whose not getting it, or getting Kickstarter but not getting Early Access.


Edit: Also, unfortunately other peoples' ideas of "overpaying" have an impact on me, because businesses will sell at whatever people will pay. Which means if enough fools have enough money to be easily parted from, people like me get left out in the cold. It's already happened with the obscenity that is the $60 AAA game.

Tell me about it, I usually don't have more than $20 a month for gaming. Somehow, I live. It's called "waiting a few months for things to become worth it to me".

And also, I understand Early Access perfectly well. There's hardly anything TO get. It's just that they tied it to the Kickstarter, and have decided that late adopters will pay the same amount as the early ones. That's not a silly decision, I think it's great that they're willing to support their first supporters that way.

And they DO get something in return, they get the game way before everyone else, even if it is a glitchier, less complete version. If I had considerable disposable income, I would consider buying the early access, as I think PA looks cool.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Let me put it this way: Kickstarter is seed money. You're not paying for access to a game, you're helping to fund its creation at a very early stage, with no promise that it will actually get made, just a promise that if it /does/ get made, you'll get the rewards for the tier you bought into. Steam Early Access is something totally different, it's a way for people who are really interested in a game that already has playable builds to buy a copy before it's actually finished, and to continue to get updates as they come out.

The problem here isn't with me not understanding how Kickstarter works, apparently you're the one whose not getting it, or getting Kickstarter but not getting Early Access.


Edit: Also, unfortunately other peoples' ideas of "overpaying" have an impact on me, because businesses will sell at whatever people will pay. Which means if enough fools have enough money to be easily parted from, people like me get left out in the cold. It's already happened with the obscenity that is the $60 AAA game.

Tell me about it, I usually don't have more than $20 a month for gaming. Somehow, I live. It's called "waiting a few months for things to become worth it to me".

And also, I understand Early Access perfectly well. There's hardly anything TO get. It's just that they tied it to the Kickstarter, and have decided that late adopters will pay the same amount as the early ones. That's not a silly decision, I think it's great that they're willing to support their first supporters that way.

And they DO get something in return, they get the game way before everyone else, even if it is a glitchier, less complete version. If I had considerable disposable income, I would consider buying the early access, as I think PA looks cool.

Your last part only applies if the group behind the Kickstarter actually manages to make a game. And that right there is where you're not understanding where I'm coming from, and why Kickstarter is different from Steam Early Access.

Edit: Another way of putting it:

Kickstarter is an investment, it's democratized venture capitalism.

Steam Early Access is a pre-order.

They're two very different things.

 

[lacktheknack]

Let me put it this way: Kickstarter is seed money. You're not paying for access to a game, you're helping to fund its creation at a very early stage, with no promise that it will actually get made, just a promise that if it /does/ get made, you'll get the rewards for the tier you bought into. Steam Early Access is something totally different, it's a way for people who are really interested in a game that already has playable builds to buy a copy before it's actually finished, and to continue to get updates as they come out.

The problem here isn't with me not understanding how Kickstarter works, apparently you're the one whose not getting it, or getting Kickstarter but not getting Early Access.


Edit: Also, unfortunately other peoples' ideas of "overpaying" have an impact on me, because businesses will sell at whatever people will pay. Which means if enough fools have enough money to be easily parted from, people like me get left out in the cold. It's already happened with the obscenity that is the $60 AAA game.

Tell me about it, I usually don't have more than $20 a month for gaming. Somehow, I live. It's called "waiting a few months for things to become worth it to me".

And also, I understand Early Access perfectly well. There's hardly anything TO get. It's just that they tied it to the Kickstarter, and have decided that late adopters will pay the same amount as the early ones. That's not a silly decision, I think it's great that they're willing to support their first supporters that way.

And they DO get something in return, they get the game way before everyone else, even if it is a glitchier, less complete version. If I had considerable disposable income, I would consider buying the early access, as I think PA looks cool.

Your last part only applies if the group behind the Kickstarter actually manages to make a game. And that right there is where you're not understanding where I'm coming from, and why Kickstarter is different from Steam Early Access.

Except they are currently making it, there's no reason to believe they won't finish, and the Early Access has been open for months... at this point, the differences are moot.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Let me put it this way: Kickstarter is seed money. You're not paying for access to a game, you're helping to fund its creation at a very early stage, with no promise that it will actually get made, just a promise that if it /does/ get made, you'll get the rewards for the tier you bought into. Steam Early Access is something totally different, it's a way for people who are really interested in a game that already has playable builds to buy a copy before it's actually finished, and to continue to get updates as they come out.

The problem here isn't with me not understanding how Kickstarter works, apparently you're the one whose not getting it, or getting Kickstarter but not getting Early Access.


Edit: Also, unfortunately other peoples' ideas of "overpaying" have an impact on me, because businesses will sell at whatever people will pay. Which means if enough fools have enough money to be easily parted from, people like me get left out in the cold. It's already happened with the obscenity that is the $60 AAA game.

Tell me about it, I usually don't have more than $20 a month for gaming. Somehow, I live. It's called "waiting a few months for things to become worth it to me".

And also, I understand Early Access perfectly well. There's hardly anything TO get. It's just that they tied it to the Kickstarter, and have decided that late adopters will pay the same amount as the early ones. That's not a silly decision, I think it's great that they're willing to support their first supporters that way.

And they DO get something in return, they get the game way before everyone else, even if it is a glitchier, less complete version. If I had considerable disposable income, I would consider buying the early access, as I think PA looks cool.

Your last part only applies if the group behind the Kickstarter actually manages to make a game. And that right there is where you're not understanding where I'm coming from, and why Kickstarter is different from Steam Early Access.

Except they are currently making it, there's no reason to believe they won't finish, and the Early Access has been open for months... at this point, the differences are moot.

And the kickstarter has been closed for how long? It's like saying the people who paid $200 for a DVD player in 1997 that didn't even have DTS support got ripped off because a few years later you could buy one with the finalized spec for under $50.

Besides, like I said, kickstarter is an investment, Steam Early Access is a pre-order. They're not the same thing, either literally or functionally.

 

[lacktheknack]

Let me put it this way: Kickstarter is seed money. You're not paying for access to a game, you're helping to fund its creation at a very early stage, with no promise that it will actually get made, just a promise that if it /does/ get made, you'll get the rewards for the tier you bought into. Steam Early Access is something totally different, it's a way for people who are really interested in a game that already has playable builds to buy a copy before it's actually finished, and to continue to get updates as they come out.

The problem here isn't with me not understanding how Kickstarter works, apparently you're the one whose not getting it, or getting Kickstarter but not getting Early Access.


Edit: Also, unfortunately other peoples' ideas of "overpaying" have an impact on me, because businesses will sell at whatever people will pay. Which means if enough fools have enough money to be easily parted from, people like me get left out in the cold. It's already happened with the obscenity that is the $60 AAA game.

Tell me about it, I usually don't have more than $20 a month for gaming. Somehow, I live. It's called "waiting a few months for things to become worth it to me".

And also, I understand Early Access perfectly well. There's hardly anything TO get. It's just that they tied it to the Kickstarter, and have decided that late adopters will pay the same amount as the early ones. That's not a silly decision, I think it's great that they're willing to support their first supporters that way.

And they DO get something in return, they get the game way before everyone else, even if it is a glitchier, less complete version. If I had considerable disposable income, I would consider buying the early access, as I think PA looks cool.

Your last part only applies if the group behind the Kickstarter actually manages to make a game. And that right there is where you're not understanding where I'm coming from, and why Kickstarter is different from Steam Early Access.

Except they are currently making it, there's no reason to believe they won't finish, and the Early Access has been open for months... at this point, the differences are moot.

And the kickstarter has been closed for how long? It's like saying the people who paid $200 for a DVD player in 1997 that didn't even have DTS support got ripped off because a few years later you could buy one with the finalized spec for under $50.

Besides, like I said, kickstarter is an investment, Steam Early Access is a pre-order. They're not the same thing, either literally or functionally.

...which has no bearing on their pricing whatsoever... Regardless of differences between Kickstarter and Early Access, I still am pleased that they kept the price the same for both. Continuing to say "But they're different things!" isn't going to change that, because they're functionally the same now that uncertainty has been removed (and yes, they ARE functionally the same now, just not before).

Also, the Kickstarter closed mere months ago, not years, and no final product has been released for market consumption. Not a good analogue there.

 

[DragonStorm247]

Let me put it this way: Kickstarter is seed money. You're not paying for access to a game, you're helping to fund its creation at a very early stage, with no promise that it will actually get made, just a promise that if it /does/ get made, you'll get the rewards for the tier you bought into.

That's not quite how it works. Remember, if the project does not meet its funding goal, none of the money goes through. If it does, the creator's are legally obligated to deliver that product and all the rewards. But you are correct in your argument that it is different from buying a game on Steam. It's the difference between a customer and an investor.

On a side note, is there no love for indie TRPG's?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Let me put it this way: Kickstarter is seed money. You're not paying for access to a game, you're helping to fund its creation at a very early stage, with no promise that it will actually get made, just a promise that if it /does/ get made, you'll get the rewards for the tier you bought into.

That's not quite how it works. Remember, if the project does not meet its funding goal, none of the money goes through. If it does, the creator's are legally obligated to deliver that product and all the rewards. But you are correct in your argument that it is different from buying a game on Steam. It's the difference between a customer and an investor.

On a side note, is there no love for indie TRPG's?

That's mostly true, but failing to meet the goal is not what I was talking about. If the kickstarter makes its goal but the product never actually gets made, there's no legal recourse for the backers. It's venture capitalism, except instead of funding a project in return for a percentage of future profits, they fund it in return for the rewards at the various tiers -- which they only get if, once funded, the project actually plays out. The fact that so many people in this thread aren't getting this is proof of how complacent people have gotten because most of the major ones so far have worked out, and effectively all of the ones surrounding videogames have. A lot of that has to do with how massively over-funded successful videogame kickstarters tend to be, though.

 

[DragonStorm247]

Let me put it this way: Kickstarter is seed money. You're not paying for access to a game, you're helping to fund its creation at a very early stage, with no promise that it will actually get made, just a promise that if it /does/ get made, you'll get the rewards for the tier you bought into.

That's not quite how it works. Remember, if the project does not meet its funding goal, none of the money goes through. If it does, the creator's are legally obligated to deliver that product and all the rewards. But you are correct in your argument that it is different from buying a game on Steam. It's the difference between a customer and an investor.

On a side note, is there no love for indie TRPG's?

That's mostly true, but failing to meet the goal is not what I was talking about. If the kickstarter makes its goal but the product never actually gets made, there's no legal recourse for the backers. It's venture capitalism, except instead of funding a project in return for a percentage of future profits, they fund it in return for the rewards at the various tiers -- which they only get if, once funded, the project actually plays out. The fact that so many people in this thread aren't getting this is proof of how complacent people have gotten because most of the major ones so far have worked out, and effectively all of the ones surrounding videogames have. A lot of that has to do with how massively over-funded successful videogame kickstarters tend to be, though.

Incorrect. If you fail to deliver by the dates you specify, backers can ask for a full refund of which KS's terms obligate you to return. You can always explain the situation and hope your backers are generous enough to allow you an extension, but if they are not, the you are SoL.