Our Games
Community
Newsletter
Click here to sign up for our newletter! - Privacy Policy
Company
Who am I?
If you are interested in the process of making and selling games, have I got the blog for you!Dinosauria Dev
The Evolution of Indie
We always knew “indie” meant SOMETHING. But no one could ever define what it was. With the success of high-wattage IGF winners, the divorce of the casual gaming market from the indie gaming market, and the continued commoditization of free-to-play flash games, the beast has finally emerged from the mud. It has become clear what indie games are.
This article is on the evolution of indie games distribution and how it has shaped the content and helped to finally define what “indie” means as a genre of game.
The 80’s were defined by the golden age of computer games, the rise of the console, and the apex of the arcade. The 90’s will probably be remembered best for the move to 3D. And it is becoming clear that the 2000’s are defined by the rise of the casual game and the subsequent birth of the modern “indie” game.
What blessed road hath led us here? (2003-2007)
The first half of the decade saw the rise of the portals on the strength of sales from games like Diner Dash (2004) and Zuma (2004). This opened up a digital distribution route for smaller games made by small “proto-indie” teams. The fact that some of these small teams were making buckets of cash turned the heads of game industry execs and spurred many devs to quit their jobs working on AAA games to try to strike it rich working on smaller, more personal projects (see LastDayOfWork, makers of Virtual Villagers).
During these times, “indie” just meant small and unfettered. A majority of the people making “indie” games were actually making “casual” games intended for distribution on portals like Yahoo Games, MSN, and the like.
From 2004 to 2007, two things began to happen:
1) So many people were trying to get into the game that production values (and thus cost) started going up.
2) Portals began to switch from finding games with hidden potential to spending their time and money on sure-bets – games in proven genres like Click-Management (Diner Dash) and Hidden Object (Mystery Case Files).
Then, portals like BigFishGames started the price wars. Big Fish started offering “game passes” to customers, where they would pay a subscription fee in order to pay a small amount (7 bucks) per game purchased. Eventually, the other portals followed suit, most recently with Reflexive’s price drop across the board to <$10 per game.
The Road Forks (2007-2008)
The next two years will be remembered as the high-water-mark for indie games.
As the casual game market became inhospitable for indie developers, a few other big players saw the casual portals covered in cash and decided to open up their own distribution portals. Like the earlier web portals, Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, Valve, and others decided that there was a fortune to be made on the backs of indie developers. Xbox Live Arcade, WiiWare, PSN, iTunes, Facebook, and Steam all offered distribution routes for the indie devs who made games that no longer fit into the narrowing definition of “casual”.
Like the golden age of the casual games, these new portals are still searching for a formula for success. Every time it seems that they have it figured out (XBLA with retro and casual games, WiiWare with their Nintendo back catalog), an indie game comes along to break the mold: World of Goo, Castle Crashers, Audiosurf, Braid, Everyday Shooter, and fl0w have all broken rules and bended genres and proven that in the entertainment world, there is still lots of money to be made with innovation.
There may be dark times ahead, though. Microsoft dropped the developer’s share of the royalties in half on Xbox Live Arcade. After a very strong start with the iPhone store, games have been dropping in price dramatically and the indie applications are slowly getting choked out by licensed brands.
New Allies
Luckily, indies have a new ally in their relationship with distribution portals. Indies have a new ally in the Gaming Press.
Hard-core gaming has plateaued in popularity with this round of consoles. The PS3 flopped, the Wii attracted a big casual audience but has failed to excite the hardcore audience, and the Xbox 360, while the best of the bunch, feels mechanical and corporate (a little like a really good Led Zeppelin cover band).
The lack of excitement about hardcore gaming has left the gaming press starving for content. Low and behold, indies come along to save the day. Sites like Kotaku and TigSource have benefited hugely from the oddities coming out of the indie gaming world. And their attention has allowed indie devs to command more lucrative deals and even make a fortune on direct sales. Distribution is no longer the only key to success in the indie world; PR is the second avenue to indie success.
A sidenote: GameTunnel used to be the authoritative voice on indie gaming back when indies were focused on casual games. The editor of that site, Russ Carroll, has broad tastes that do tend to skew towards casual games. These days, TigSource, run by Derek Yu, is pretty much the undisputed king of indie gaming news. Derek’s tastes run more towards retro-arcade games and “weird” games. It’s a chicken-or-the-egg situation: did the attention of these sites shape the content or did the content provide the audience for the sites?
Is THIS the Promised Land?
If the quality and innovation of the content is defined by the distribution opportunities, we are currently hitting a high point in independent game development. The “core portals” (steam, XBLA, etc) are still experimenting, and smaller distribution avenues are opening up as well (see Kongregate and Newgrounds).
In 2006, indie games were lumped with serious games and casual games, because they all had one thing in common: they were less expensive to make than AAA games. But the changes in funding and distribution has split those markets from one another and helped define what “indie” games mean to the customer.
Gamers, CUSTOMERS, now see indie games as the poetry, the short stories of the gaming world. They are different, they are thoughtful, and they make you appreciate nuance. As Kyle Gabler said in his recent Global Game Jam keynote the best games made in game-jams “introduce one new concept to gaming as fast and as clear as possible”. This is largely true for all of indie games as well. The finalists in this year’s IGF competition also tend towards this concept.
Why is this important? Because in the past, “indie” games didn’t mean anything to customers. WE, the DEVELOPERS, knew what it meant — it was important to us because it meant that we were unfettered. But customers didn’t have expectations about what an indie game was.
Customers DO have expectations now. Indie games are games that, by definition, don’t fit into any other box. They cost from 0 to 30 dollars. They are “cool” — knowing about them is “cool”.
5 years ago, the market looking for games that fit this description was very small. Today, it’s a viable market, and one that is likely to be resistant to overly oppressive distribution portals.
The Future of Indie Games
It is ALWAYS true that EVERY business-related article in ANY publication is WRONG. It is the visionaries that find and exploit exceptions to the rules. Take Grubby Games for example, they still manage to exploit the casual gaming market with My Tribe, while developing the ultra-indie, ultry-nerdy, web-based community game, Incredibots.
Indie games will change. But “indie” has finally emerged from its adolescence and found its own identity, unique from “casual games”. Indie games have come of age.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Great article but I would dispute this one comment:
“WE, the DEVELOPERS, knew what it meant”
Even now developers can’t agree on this. There are still constant arguments about whether a game is indie or not; if a developer has sold out or not.
Are Behemoth indie?
Are Q games indie?
Are Introversion indie?
Are Metanet indie?
All work in a completely different way yet all are completely commercial. Even I don’t know if all three are indie (the IGF obviously think they are).
There are plenty of people out there who do not see any of these companies as indie, at least not any more.
My view is that the lines are being blurred. Indie is a larger world than many people would like to think, and the “right” to be called indie cannot come down to any one person or any one definition.
This has implications for TIGSource, IGF, and developers. I can see a schism happening, particularly with regard to the IGF. Millions of dollars are involved in the indie world now, and the IGF plays a fundamental part in that.
Can bedroom and student developers compete with 4-8 man studios?
Does it actually matter whether they can or not? Is indie now a commercial term, just as it is in film?
February 9th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Interesting response — Yes, indies still dispute the definition of an “indie” developer, and the amount of money riding on the IGF is bound to spark some tensions. The IGF still has an honor system on their entrance requirements, meaning that if you define yourself as indie, you enter a game, and the judges don’t secretly torpedo your chances, you can be nominated. However, note that so far, both the Behemoth and Introversion have taken the honorable road by not entering in years they could have, (and this part is speculation) perhaps because they recognize that with their popularity and capital, they don’t belong in the competition anymore. Q Games did not go that route, and I believe there has been a bit of uproar over PixelJunk Eden being nominated this year, though that chatter has largely been drowned out in the YHTBTR discussion.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Andy, you have an error in your post. Members of BFG Game Club don’t get games for free. It’s $6.99 for each game you purchase with 12 months commitment.
BFG had their Game Club offer available from the beginning. Price wars started when BFG went to much ahead of competition.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Thanks Roman- That’s embarrassing, edited :)
February 9th, 2009 at 11:17 am
The definition of Indie is actually easy.
It defines the developer, not the content.
Core defines a game type (typically in regards to a game’s accessibility and/or theme) to and a player (people who like to play that game type).
(core and hardcore tend to be used interchangably)
Casual also defines a game type (typically in regards to a game’s accessibility and/or theme) and a player (EITHER a player who doesn’t play very often or a player who plays casual games — which is why there so much confusion about what casual means, people use it to define VERY different things and that causes confusion).
…but Indie, isn’t talking about the game or the audience, it’s talking about the developer, which means that it incorporates all types of genres and all types of audiences and can actually be sliced into many segments if you choose to do so.
So the definition of indie is this: A developer who calls themself indie.
Usually the definition tries to discuss the content, which is why it always breaks down in discussion. There is no such thing as indie content, unless you define it as “Indie Games are games made by Indie Developers.” However, when you define it that way, it becomes very broad and some people (especially adolescents for some unknown reason) like to look at things narrowly.
I wrote a great article about this topic (as far as you know ;), but never edited it and sent it onto Gamasutra like I’d planned, but hopefully the core here brings some additional thoughts out that are interesting :).
February 9th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Russ- I used to agree with you, but customers are beginning to have a sense for what defines indie games, that’s why this transition is important. Indie USED to only define the developer, but now the gamers have a concept in their head about what “indie” means as a genre. If this weren’t true, TIGSource would be about developers, for developers. It’s not, it’s for gamers interested in “indie” games.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:54 am
We have Indie games, but what some people actually consider Indie is what I’d call Punk, to use a music analogy.
Punk games are the ones that go out to be radical, to give it to the man (or rather ‘common’ gamers), to be different, and they’re created by someone in a bedroom or a bathroom or a cardboard box. They may be unplayable, they may be ultra hardcore, or they may be about the meaning of life.
They are normally super-niche in appeal, and it’s cool to like them and know about them, even if most of them are basically rubbish. That doesn’t make them any less valuable – it’s a playground, somewhere to experiment and learn and inspire.
Punk games aren’t commercial – once they become commercial they’ve sold out. That’s when they joined the “cool kids” indie pop scene, to use another music analogy.
To answer my previous question about who is indie:
Introversion were totally Punk.
Behemoth were never punk although Newgrounds almost certainly was and probably still is.
Q Games want to be alternative and are very capable but they wear slacks and sony sponsored jumpers and just look all wrong.
Metanet were full on hardcore punk and would like to stay there but a new class of punks may push them out.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Sillytuna, that’s a superb analogy. You’ve effectively distinguished between indie and alternative – a difference which isn’t always clear cut, but it’s a difference nontheless.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Yeah I agree with Alex. What some people call the indie genre is just a slice of what indie is. I think the idea of it pushing boundaries fits well with that ‘punk’ comparison that was made.
However, when you define indie that small you quickly eliminate people who aren’t pushing boundaries who aren’t perceived to be pushing boundaries. What makes Eschalon indie is the developer, not the content. It doesn’t push any boundaries, and it is a RPG by genre. How about Jasper’s Journeys? Titan Attacks?
Again, when you start pushing indie as a genre, it quickly breaks down and you start arbitrarly deciding who belongs to the club and who doesn’t.
You can further sub-divide the definition of indie into pieces such as ‘developers who develop for themself and ignore the market,’ but it’s still a definition of the who, not the what that describes indie. Notably the IGF discerns Indie by ‘who you work for’ not what type of game you make. As soon as indie defines itself as soley a game type, there will be NEW NEW indie that comes to break down that door with something that goes outside the boundaries that you’ve arbitrarly set.
One thing I strongly believe is that setting a rule on what indie games can be only gives indie developers something to break.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
You guys are funny.
Indie is a shortened form of the word independent. I went to dictionary.com for a definition of the word. Any other dictionaries may be slightly different. Dictionary.com has 20 definitions for independent – http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=independent ( warning there might be an ad popup).
The definitions most appropriate to us is – 4. Not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc. and 10. working for oneself or for a small, privately owned business.
Now given that, really independent means that you’re free to make the game you want to make without someone holding the check over you telling you what you need to do. I mean I could be a game developer that has backing of some retail AAA company and they could give me as much autonomy as they dare, and I could call myself an indie, but I wouldn’t really be an indie, because the big company would ultimately have final say.
Being commercial is a side effect of the BUSINESS that we’re in. If you sell your games at all you’re commercial, that doesn’t exclude you from being independent. Just like if you’re making a living making games you’re a professional.
If Behemoth is still making games that are self-funded and they simply look for someone to publish them, then they could probably still be technically called indie. The same with the rest of them. If not well then they’re not indie anymore because someone else has a final say in their games.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Russ- Perhaps you didn’t read to the end of the article ;) Here is the last segment:
“It is ALWAYS true that EVERY business-related article in ANY publication is WRONG. It is the visionaries that find and exploit exceptions to the rules. Take Grubby Games for example, they still manage to exploit the casual gaming market with My Tribe, while developing the ultra-indie, ultry-nerdy, web-based community game, Incredibots.”
February 9th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Keith- My point in the article was that indie has always meant something about developers, but it has never really meant something to customers… until now. “Indie” is in fact starting to have a meaning to gamers.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I was Indie (ran my own company) and I made match-3 clones. So my games were in fact Indie games, but of course it made more sense to label them as Casual games. This is why non-Casual Indie games need some other label (like Punk or whatever).
Also Real has had a Game Pass thing for years (I was a member back in 2006 and got some great arcade games like Heavy Weapon and Platypus), it’s not just BFG.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Thanks for the response Jake – I’m surprised all of you seem to be missing the point I was trying to get across — the difference between “indie” as a company and what “Indie” now means to customers. They aren’t the same.
As for BFG, teh quote from the article is “Then, portals like BigFishGames started the price wars”, I didn’t claim BFG were the only ones doing it.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Andy, I was sort of replying to Russ when he mentioned that younger indie fans tended to be more radical.
The punk analogy is actually for the consumer, not the developer. I was putting a consumer’s view on the developer. They don’t see us as we may want to be seen.
I’ve always thought that we needed to educate the market about indie games; to carve out a niche large enough for a reasonable number of companies to grow within. No one company could do it on their own, but together we can – and many of you have.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Gotcha :)
February 9th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Andy, I wasn’t really commenting on the article so much as the other comments. Everyone is always arguing about what Indie is, that it’s really simple given you can look up independent in the dictionary. Again your points on the way consumers see us is completely valid, and I am not disputing them.
February 10th, 2009 at 4:33 am
@Keith: Your definition of it was what I offered up as a simple definition to in the past but it was liked by the majority because apparently it’s an oversimplification, ah well.
@Andy: I think I understand overall what your saying, indie is/has become a category/type of game/game maker to the customers, not just casual and core. It’s being separated in the same manner as indie and commercial record label music, even more so with the forcing of price (let alone other things) from casual portals which in most definitions of indie is not indie at all which is what many (including myself) alluded too back then.
Good post Andy!
February 10th, 2009 at 4:36 am
Need and edit button! (Correction of last comment)
@Keith: Your definition of indie was what I offered up as a simple definition too in the past but it was not liked by the majority because apparently it’s an oversimplification, ah well.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:39 am
Leroy – I’d like to see how anyone thought it was an oversimplification. If you’re independent you can make a game how you want to, if you’re not, you have to make it with the interests of others, which usually means money. (I’m also not arguing with you, I’m just saying to others that if you’re beholding to someone else, you’re not independent.)
February 10th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Precisely Keith, I agree. I think back when this was discussed often (it was probably on the indie gamer forums specifically) it was thought as more about what you made (innovative, core, non-casual etc) rather then why/how you made it (for you/fun, your vision, not publisher/portal restrictions/shareholders etc).
Ah, I managed to fine one such previous post but there’s probably loads more, my comment on what’s indie/non indie is posted as defanual:
http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?t=13451
February 10th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Just read it Leroy, and I have to say they are all posers ;-) (Okay so some of them actually have a working business and I don’t) — I don’t really get how they can give some convoluted definition when it’s staring them straight in the face.
In any case I’ve derailed comments on this blog post, for that I am sorry Andy.
February 11th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Great write-up. But I think the real shift is the business models, not just the labels. Try and buy might be non-viable for many indies now.
February 11th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
[...] kind of exciting to read about how others are interpreting these changes. What’s your [...]
February 13th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
[...] by The Evolution of Indie, Jay Barnson from Tales of The Rampant Coyote takes a look at the The Fifteen Different Types of [...]
February 13th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
[...] by The Evolution of Indie, Jay Barnson from Tales of The Rampant Coyote takes a look at the The Fifteen Different Types of [...]
August 14th, 2009 at 7:01 am
[...] music metaphor, distinguishes between indie and punk games, and pointed me to where it is online in this comment at Pocketwatch: We have Indie games, but what some people actually consider Indie is what I’d [...]