Skidonti said:
No, they are successful becuase they are fun, innovative, cheap, and can stand to serve a much smaller market than a hundred million dollar AAA game requires just to turn a profit. I saw you mention it would be cool if 5 AAA games released a month... which just can't happen. The industry can't sustain that. The development would be too intensive and the customers would not be there for that many games, flops would be all over the place and almost no one would turn a profit. |
It's hypothetical of course. Just like "Consoles would be less popular if everyone could afford a monster PC and be savvy enough to use it on a tv."
Indies are a compromise just like consoles are. There is nothing you can't do in a AAA game that you could do in an indie game and I'm pretty sure that all indie developers would love to have more funds to boost their game.
If we had the opportunity to choose from as many AAA games as we wanted, there would be no need for indies as all the variety would be there.
I just think this separation is silly. Indie games are not inherently more fun or innovative. The only difference between them and AAA is the budget which shifts the constraints. While indies have presentation and content constraints, they do have absolute creative freedom. It's the other way around with AAA. With enough money in the market there would be no difference. Indie games would have bigger budgets and no constraints and AAA would have more creative freedom as a failure of a game wouldn't end a company.
If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.







