Why Indies Can't Thrive On Consoles
Now, you don't see these too often from me (mainly due to time constraints, rather than lack of opinions), but big sister site Gamasutra just posted a new editorial from me named 'Opinion: Why Indies Can't Thrive On Consoles', originally published in the May 2007 issue of Game Developer magazine.
I'm going to extract just enough of this so you can get the idea - please go over and read the remainder to get a better idea. But I'm talking about downloadable, self-financed indie console games here:
"Imagine the following unlikely scenario: the movie theaters of America are divided into three groups, each of which requires a different aspect ratio and delivery format for any movie showing in it. Perhaps the three different formats don’t actually encourage easy conversion between them. Just think what a chilling effect that would have on some filmmakers who wanted a shot at showing their independent movies nationwide."
"Sure, independent filmmakers might be able to do fairly well with only one-third of the American market at their disposal, but what if a certain target market just wasn’t able to get to a theater that played the right movie format for the film they wanted to see? Let’s say only a third of all art house movie chains were actually equipped to show that film. This scenario would force independent filmmakers to have much smaller budgets for their films since their chances of success are drastically reduced by 66 percent. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have the movie available everywhere?"
Wha, movies? "The ham-fisted point I’m trying to make is that the same chilling effect is currently happening with downloadable games for consoles. While Microsoft has a clear outreach channel for independent games with Xbox Live Arcade, the company hasn’t been working with Sony or Nintendo to create standards so that those games are available to PlayStation 3 and Wii owners."
The crux? "In my view, an independent game studio should be able to make a downloadable game for the Xbox 360, sell 50,000 copies at $10 each, convert it to PlayStation 3 and sell 50,000 more copies at the same price, and do the same on Nintendo’s Wii. The incremental conversion costs should theoretically be much less than the cost of developing the game from scratch. This would all contribute to a much more viable downloadable games scene."
Maybe I'm being a little bit optimistic in thinking that the major players would ever 'work together' - but I was hoping that they would at least have similarly open approval processes and make it easy for self-published indies to get their games out on console. Right now, it's even a bit borderline whether XBLA is _that_ easy to get onto for a self-published independent, and the other two systems are even worse. Which is a major shame.
Comments
It's a well-written opinion with a most unfortunate title. A casual glance at the title would leave many readers thinking that indie games can't *ever* survive on consoles, not that they can't *currently* survive because of console manufacturers' mutable policies and practices.
Posted by: Cyranix | June 1, 2007 9:11 AM
I'm not sure I understand fully. While I agree that it would be great for both gamers and developers if indie titles were universal, I don't understand at all why manufacturers would agree to this.
They make no more money if you move to another console, they lose exclusivity, and they have no stake in indie developers' success elsewhere. Where's the carrot?
-Geoff
http://www.alinktothefuture.com
Posted by: Geoff | June 1, 2007 11:12 AM
I think, again, 'universal' is pushing it. It's just important that indie developers can deal with simple enough submission systems that, even if they are a small company, they could possibly release on more than one console.
Now, having said that, I've since heard that there may be a one-year exclusivity deal for both XBLA and PSN under normal circumstances, which further makes my editorial less likely.
Posted by: simonc | June 1, 2007 12:59 PM
Oh come on. I'll tell you why indie developers won't do so well on consoles....
The console market is a chimera, constructed out of licensing agreements and hardware lockouts. The Atari 2600 had a thriving "indie" scene, with hundreds of developers. Many of those games were crap however, contributing to the Crash, and Atari couldn't do much to stop it, seeing as how the VCS was mostly off-the-shelf parts.
Nintendo took greater measures to stamp out independent game development with their lockout chip, control over manufacturing, and licensing program, which was also the main method by which they made money off of third-party software.
The NES model persists today, and as long as it continues, then the console manufacturers basically have editorial control over what games get made.
This isn't even passive censorship, where a company makes something and the company only kiboshes it if they don't approve. It's active censorship: before anyone can publish a game, Nintendo must approve it. I'm not talking about censorship over violence or sex, I'm just talking about who gets to make a game for them.
In the PC world, people can make games without Microsoft even knowing they exist. I'm sure the Windows people have never even heard of, say, La-Mulana. In the console world, you must be known to the Overlords, approved-of by them, AND pay them their tithe to get the rights to make stuff for their system. This is not a system that is conducive to promoting new kinds of play, which is the great attraction, in my opinion, of the indie scene.
The whole idea of independent game design is to be INDEPENDENT, not beholden to higher powers. Even Microsoft's vaunted XNA thingy doesn't let you distribute games you make to other X-box 360s unless you pay the "Privilege of developing for us" tax.
Posted by: John H. | June 1, 2007 4:46 PM
(There, never let it be said that I couldn't construct a screed if I needed to.)
Posted by: John H. | June 1, 2007 4:48 PM