6 ms·

There are hundreds of indie studios out there that find funding just fine. Even indie studios making eclectic puzzle games with weird stories. So this is probab

by WJW 2mo ago

There are hundreds of indie studios out there that find funding just fine. Even indie studios making eclectic puzzle games with weird stories. So this is probably not the reason.

ndiddy 2mo ago
The problem the article is talking about is that publishers will no longer fund "AA" games with $2-15 million budgets. The game market has bifurcated into low end indie titles (< $1 million budget) and AAA games with budgets in the hundreds of millions. Personally I think this is a huge shame, as "AA" games were a lot of of my favorites during the PS2 and PS3 generations. The article brings up a few reasons for why this has happened, such as the end of ZIRP and the complete lack of curation on platforms like Steam making it hard for titles to stand out. I guess if you're a publisher, you have a better chance of making a return on investment by funding 20 pixel art or friendslop titles and hoping one of them goes viral rather than funding 1 title like the new Myst sequel and hoping it doesn't get buried on Steam and the Nintendo eshop.
kg 2mo ago
The funding climate for indie games is the worst it's been in a long time and it's been bad for over a year. Lots of publishers have stopped signing deals or are only funding small amounts with really bad terms.
hnuser123456 2mo ago
The strange part is that nearly all the decently large publishers seem to be completely unable to predict when a game will be successful, because they seem unable to determine when a game is actually fun to play. So they will dump hundreds of millions into a game that nobody wants to play, get close to zero sales, and end up shutting down the game, laying off the studio, and having to find another way to make back the $100m+ they just burned. Indie devs have the time and freedom to pursue any new ideas, and it seems like every couple of months a new indie game goes viral on Steam. But many of them are passion projects that were done in someone's spare time outside of their day job. If devs could give investors more confidence that a game will sell well or go viral if it hits a certain development stage, we could do a better job of directing game dev funding towards indie devs making truly fun games.
- Filligree 2mo ago
  > The strange part is that nearly all the decently large publishers seem to be completely unable to predict when a game will be successful, because they seem unable to determine when a game is actually fun to play. So they will dump hundreds of millions into a game that nobody wants to play, get close to zero sales, and end up shutting down the game, laying off the studio, and having to find another way to make back the $100m+ they just burned. I know a guy who works with one of those publishers. According to him, almost nobody at the publisher actually games. The ones who do, limit themselves to gacha games or Bejeweled-tier games. Gaming, at least at that one, is considered childish.
- jayd16 2mo ago
  You dump the 100m first and then you get to see if its fun to play. That's a bit hyperbolic but especially for big games, they really don't come together until the end. Now, normally you could use pedigree to make smart bets about who can make a game but there have been so many buy outs and shake ups that a lot of the AAA studios have been gutted. Who is a hit maker now?
- inigyou 2mo ago
  I don't see why they'd care if the game is fun to play. They care about revenue, and surely stuffing a low-mid-tier game full of microtransactions works much better than selling a really good game.
  - hnuser123456 2mo ago
    Fair point.
  - TaLiTr 1mo ago
    > surely stuffing a low-mid-tier game full of microtransactions works much better than selling a really good game. Do they? That doesn't seem like a guarantee. Battlefront 2 was the most high profile game in recent memory I can think of. An otherwise fun game that bombed so hard because of microtransactions EA had to remove all of them and basically gave up on developing it.
mrweasel 2mo ago
Might there be so many indie studios competing for the same financing? So they can get financing for smaller games, because investors can just bet on 50 eclectic puzzle games, and if one takes off that will cover their investment, but they can't finance one larger game, because of the risk profile.

by WJW 2mo ago

There are hundreds of indie studios out there that find funding just fine. Even indie studios making eclectic puzzle games with weird stories. So this is probably not the reason.

ndiddy 2mo ago

The problem the article is talking about is that publishers will no longer fund "AA" games with $2-15 million budgets. The game market has bifurcated into low end indie titles (< $1 million budget) and AAA games with budgets in the hundreds of millions. Personally I think this is a huge shame, as "AA" games were a lot of of my favorites during the PS2 and PS3 generations. The article brings up a few reasons for why this has happened, such as the end of ZIRP and the complete lack of curation on platforms like Steam making it hard for titles to stand out. I guess if you're a publisher, you have a better chance of making a return on investment by funding 20 pixel art or friendslop titles and hoping one of them goes viral rather than funding 1 title like the new Myst sequel and hoping it doesn't get buried on Steam and the Nintendo eshop.

kg 2mo ago

The funding climate for indie games is the worst it's been in a long time and it's been bad for over a year. Lots of publishers have stopped signing deals or are only funding small amounts with really bad terms.

hnuser123456 2mo ago

The strange part is that nearly all the decently large publishers seem to be completely unable to predict when a game will be successful, because they seem unable to determine when a game is actually fun to play. So they will dump hundreds of millions into a game that nobody wants to play, get close to zero sales, and end up shutting down the game, laying off the studio, and having to find another way to make back the $100m+ they just burned. Indie devs have the time and freedom to pursue any new ideas, and it seems like every couple of months a new indie game goes viral on Steam. But many of them are passion projects that were done in someone's spare time outside of their day job. If devs could give investors more confidence that a game will sell well or go viral if it hits a certain development stage, we could do a better job of directing game dev funding towards indie devs making truly fun games.

Filligree 2mo ago
> The strange part is that nearly all the decently large publishers seem to be completely unable to predict when a game will be successful, because they seem unable to determine when a game is actually fun to play. So they will dump hundreds of millions into a game that nobody wants to play, get close to zero sales, and end up shutting down the game, laying off the studio, and having to find another way to make back the $100m+ they just burned. I know a guy who works with one of those publishers. According to him, almost nobody at the publisher actually games. The ones who do, limit themselves to gacha games or Bejeweled-tier games. Gaming, at least at that one, is considered childish.
jayd16 2mo ago
You dump the 100m first and then you get to see if its fun to play. That's a bit hyperbolic but especially for big games, they really don't come together until the end. Now, normally you could use pedigree to make smart bets about who can make a game but there have been so many buy outs and shake ups that a lot of the AAA studios have been gutted. Who is a hit maker now?
inigyou 2mo ago
I don't see why they'd care if the game is fun to play. They care about revenue, and surely stuffing a low-mid-tier game full of microtransactions works much better than selling a really good game.
- hnuser123456 2mo ago
  Fair point.
- TaLiTr 1mo ago
  > surely stuffing a low-mid-tier game full of microtransactions works much better than selling a really good game. Do they? That doesn't seem like a guarantee. Battlefront 2 was the most high profile game in recent memory I can think of. An otherwise fun game that bombed so hard because of microtransactions EA had to remove all of them and basically gave up on developing it.

mrweasel 2mo ago

Might there be so many indie studios competing for the same financing? So they can get financing for smaller games, because investors can just bet on 50 eclectic puzzle games, and if one takes off that will cover their investment, but they can't finance one larger game, because of the risk profile.