3 ms·

Many indie developers are barely making it. Some are killing it. New ideas come from indies, but sometimes from big companies too. Big companies depend on di

Many indie developers are barely making it. Some are killing it. New ideas come from indies, but sometimes from big companies too. Big companies depend on distribution and marketing, small companies depend on innovation. I have been in video games for twenty five years. It has always been like that.

ethbr0 6y ago
Where it seems to have broken down is via vertical integration. When publishers were publishers and developers were developers (80s and 90s), it seemed like there was healthier competition. Even if there were a lot of abusive deals struck. Now that we have giant, integrated publisher + development conglomerates, there's zero incentive to step out of that structure to publish a popular indie game. It feels like news sites prohibiting links to external sites, and the world's the poorer.
- phone8675309 6y ago
  It feels like the video games industry has done the reverse of Hollywood. Hollywood went from a vertically integrated system that handled production, distribution, and exhibition by a single entity to a system where production, distribution, and exhibition were done by separate entities. It feels like game development went the reverse way.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    Someone can correct me, but I'd put blame for the trend on EA / Madden NFL (~1990?). It showed what kind of profits you could make off yearly refreshes of software, while minimizing development costs. Why would an MBA take a chance on new IP when they have the above as an option?
  - quanticle 6y ago
    It's important to note that the only reason that Hollywood went from a vertically integrated system to a disaggregated one is because the US Government filed an antitrust suit that forced the disaggregation [1]. And now that that antitrust pressure is gone, we see Hollywood slowly returning to a vertically integrated system, where studios, distribution networks and theaters are all operating in close conjunction to push movies that "ought" to be profitable [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic.... [2]: https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-slow-death-of-hollywood https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-slow-death-of-hollywo...
  - georgeecollins 6y ago
    Yes and no. Big companies do development, but they don't necessarily do more development than they used to. EA and Activision actually probably develop fewer titles than they did twenty years ago. They just spend a lot more on each title. But again: Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Nintendo have always been vertically integrated. This is not new.
- georgeecollins 6y ago
  I strongly disagree. No publisher or developer conglomerate dominates today more than Sega, Nintendo, or EA did at different times 25- 30 years ago. The past always looks great in retrospect. Today's ecosystem is so much more diverse.

ethbr0 6y ago

Where it seems to have broken down is via vertical integration. When publishers were publishers and developers were developers (80s and 90s), it seemed like there was healthier competition. Even if there were a lot of abusive deals struck. Now that we have giant, integrated publisher + development conglomerates, there's zero incentive to step out of that structure to publish a popular indie game. It feels like news sites prohibiting links to external sites, and the world's the poorer.

phone8675309 6y ago
It feels like the video games industry has done the reverse of Hollywood. Hollywood went from a vertically integrated system that handled production, distribution, and exhibition by a single entity to a system where production, distribution, and exhibition were done by separate entities. It feels like game development went the reverse way.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  Someone can correct me, but I'd put blame for the trend on EA / Madden NFL (~1990?). It showed what kind of profits you could make off yearly refreshes of software, while minimizing development costs. Why would an MBA take a chance on new IP when they have the above as an option?
- quanticle 6y ago
  It's important to note that the only reason that Hollywood went from a vertically integrated system to a disaggregated one is because the US Government filed an antitrust suit that forced the disaggregation [1]. And now that that antitrust pressure is gone, we see Hollywood slowly returning to a vertically integrated system, where studios, distribution networks and theaters are all operating in close conjunction to push movies that "ought" to be profitable [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic.... [2]: https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-slow-death-of-hollywood https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-slow-death-of-hollywo...
- georgeecollins 6y ago
  Yes and no. Big companies do development, but they don't necessarily do more development than they used to. EA and Activision actually probably develop fewer titles than they did twenty years ago. They just spend a lot more on each title. But again: Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Nintendo have always been vertically integrated. This is not new.
georgeecollins 6y ago
I strongly disagree. No publisher or developer conglomerate dominates today more than Sega, Nintendo, or EA did at different times 25- 30 years ago. The past always looks great in retrospect. Today's ecosystem is so much more diverse.