4 ms·

When people say "indie" devs, they mean devs that aren't with a big publisher. Not necessarily solo devs. Any relatively successful game is going to hit those

by devmor 3y ago

When people say "indie" devs, they mean devs that aren't with a big publisher. Not necessarily solo devs. Any relatively successful game is going to hit those numbers. $200k in revenue is barely enough to cover 3-4 months of development for a small studio.

Ekaros 3y ago
Or couple of years of solo developer time. Not to forgot it is from revenue not profit. So give Steam/Google/Apple their cut and remove any external asset or work bought and 200k isn't that much for any non-low income country.
gambiting 3y ago
That's not what I mean when I say "indie" and I work in video games. I'm aware of some companies that employ 10+ people who still call themselves "indie" - I find that dishonest. >>Any relatively successful game is going to hit those numbers. Sure - and any relatively successful game should have no trouble paying those fees. The only real edge case that's going to be affected negatively by this change are f2p games that rely on having millions of installed copies to make miniscule amount of money from few paying people. Those games should consider switching away from Unity.
- 0x457 3y ago
  It's the same meaning of the world as in the movie and music industry - no publisher/label == indie. Indie doesn't mean "small team" or "ugly game with interesting gameplay" or "game that makes less than 200k". All that means is that there aren't any external contractual obligations.
  - kemayo 3y ago
    To mostly agree with you, note that the etymology is that "indie" is a shortening of "independent". It does tend to carry connotations of small teams in video games, but that might just be because the margins in the industry make it super-hard for large studios to remain independent. Note that I think Valve would count as an indie under a pure independence metric, thus making things like Half Life an indie game. Which feels a bit off.
    - devmor 3y ago
      Valve would not count as an indie because they are themselves a large publisher.
      - kemayo 3y ago
        Yeah, but that's still not them being affiliated with someone else. We'd probably call someone who self-publishes an indie, for instance, and that's what they're effectively doing...
        Jensson 3y ago
        To me indie means that there is no outside stakeholder that wants ROI, its all funded by the development team or customers. This would then also include every public stock company and every company where the owner no longer works on the games in addition to having outside publishers. This would disqualify almost every bigger teams. There are still some big indie teams, but very few. All the bad things that comes with a publisher also comes with having outside investors/owners in general, it means that now the game starts to be judges on ROI rather than the developers pride.
        0x457 3y ago
        Well, a publisher is essentially a very hands-on and loud investor. Private or public, many have 3rd party investors that expect ROI. The difference is how much say those 3rd parties have. Having EA as a publisher, for example, comes with having to use their engine and tools and in some cases it makes no sense (see ME: Andromeda and Frost Bite). Having some equity firm X as an investor comes with "you gotta make $$$"
      - 0x457 3y ago
        Valve is absolutely indie since they're self-publishing. Great example of "indie" not meaning "small". CDPR is another example.
- devmor 3y ago
  It may not be what you mean, but you are responding to other people's takes on the situation with their usage of the word. What you mean does not matter.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  > I'm aware of some companies that employ 10+ people who still call themselves "indie" - I find that dishonest. how? my first failed app had about 7 staff at one point: 2 programmers, 2 artists, a writer, sound designer, and the founder himself. the founder was paying all of us out of pocket. What makes that "not indie" compared to right now where if it was just the owner using his own time? >and any relatively successful game should have no trouble paying those fees. accounts I've read from devs suggest not. For some devs it ends up paying more revenue than they take in, despite qualifying. >The only real edge case that's going to be affected negatively by this change are f2p games that rely on having millions of installed copies to make miniscule amount of money from few paying people. nah, it works best for them because whales can purchase continuously and with huge amounts.

by devmor 3y ago

Ekaros 3y ago

Or couple of years of solo developer time. Not to forgot it is from revenue not profit. So give Steam/Google/Apple their cut and remove any external asset or work bought and 200k isn't that much for any non-low income country.

gambiting 3y ago

That's not what I mean when I say "indie" and I work in video games. I'm aware of some companies that employ 10+ people who still call themselves "indie" - I find that dishonest. >>Any relatively successful game is going to hit those numbers. Sure - and any relatively successful game should have no trouble paying those fees. The only real edge case that's going to be affected negatively by this change are f2p games that rely on having millions of installed copies to make miniscule amount of money from few paying people. Those games should consider switching away from Unity.

0x457 3y ago
It's the same meaning of the world as in the movie and music industry - no publisher/label == indie. Indie doesn't mean "small team" or "ugly game with interesting gameplay" or "game that makes less than 200k". All that means is that there aren't any external contractual obligations.
- kemayo 3y ago
  To mostly agree with you, note that the etymology is that "indie" is a shortening of "independent". It does tend to carry connotations of small teams in video games, but that might just be because the margins in the industry make it super-hard for large studios to remain independent. Note that I think Valve would count as an indie under a pure independence metric, thus making things like Half Life an indie game. Which feels a bit off.
  - devmor 3y ago
    Valve would not count as an indie because they are themselves a large publisher.
    - kemayo 3y ago
      Yeah, but that's still not them being affiliated with someone else. We'd probably call someone who self-publishes an indie, for instance, and that's what they're effectively doing...
      - Jensson 3y ago
        To me indie means that there is no outside stakeholder that wants ROI, its all funded by the development team or customers. This would then also include every public stock company and every company where the owner no longer works on the games in addition to having outside publishers. This would disqualify almost every bigger teams. There are still some big indie teams, but very few. All the bad things that comes with a publisher also comes with having outside investors/owners in general, it means that now the game starts to be judges on ROI rather than the developers pride.
        0x457 3y ago
        Well, a publisher is essentially a very hands-on and loud investor. Private or public, many have 3rd party investors that expect ROI. The difference is how much say those 3rd parties have. Having EA as a publisher, for example, comes with having to use their engine and tools and in some cases it makes no sense (see ME: Andromeda and Frost Bite). Having some equity firm X as an investor comes with "you gotta make $$$"
    - 0x457 3y ago
      Valve is absolutely indie since they're self-publishing. Great example of "indie" not meaning "small". CDPR is another example.
devmor 3y ago
It may not be what you mean, but you are responding to other people's takes on the situation with their usage of the word. What you mean does not matter.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
> I'm aware of some companies that employ 10+ people who still call themselves "indie" - I find that dishonest. how? my first failed app had about 7 staff at one point: 2 programmers, 2 artists, a writer, sound designer, and the founder himself. the founder was paying all of us out of pocket. What makes that "not indie" compared to right now where if it was just the owner using his own time? >and any relatively successful game should have no trouble paying those fees. accounts I've read from devs suggest not. For some devs it ends up paying more revenue than they take in, despite qualifying. >The only real edge case that's going to be affected negatively by this change are f2p games that rely on having millions of installed copies to make miniscule amount of money from few paying people. nah, it works best for them because whales can purchase continuously and with huge amounts.