By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Anti-Indie'ers are giving me cancer!

MikeRox said:


You can't redefine something to support your argument.

You dislike games with small/single development teams that don't have graphics you deem worthy. Not indie games.

You can't force me not to define something to support my argument also.

XBLA has an amazing library of what you call Indies.

Mark of the Ninja, Iron Brigade (amazing gameplay), Battleblock Theater, State of Decay, Fuzion Frenzy, Castle Crashers, Hydro Thunder etc...

I own all of them.



Around the Network

All of you give me cancer. Thanks a lot.



Goatseye said:
MikeRox said:
 


You can't redefine something to support your argument.

You dislike games with small/single development teams that don't have graphics you deem worthy. Not indie games.

You can't force me not to define something to support my argument also.

XBLA has an amazing library of what you call Indies.

Mark of the Ninja, Iron Brigade (amazing gameplay), Battleblock Theater, State of Decay, Fuzion Frenzy, Castle Crashers, Hydro Thunder etc...

I own all of them.


Indeed, but it all doesn't make you any more right or any less ignorant.

I know XBLA has some awesome games on it. Boom Boom Rocket was a personal highlight for me.



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

Goatseye said:
Zanten said:
 


Ehhhh, it might have helped with keeping out the muck, (although stuff like the patching fee actually kept devs from trying to patch glitched games,) but the old publisher policies were rife with their own issues; for one thing, many of the Publishers involved were, to put it bluntly, complete dicks and abused the crap out of their role. Given Microsoft would assign a limited number of 'slots' to each, based I believe on some objective measure of the Publisher's size or sales... in any case, only publishers who sold physical games at retail qualified for these slots, and because the slots were limited, publishers would often use their 'supply' as leverage. A developer looking to release on the Xbox 360 would sometimes end up having to either accept insane conditions, ("If we publish for you, not only do you have to give us a cut of the revenue from the 360 platform, you have to give us a cut from ALL the platforms, even the ones that you could self-publish on.") or simply not publish on the Xbox 360 at all. And since the Parity clause meant if you published anywhere else first, you COULDN'T publish on Xbox 360 afterwards, plenty of devs were hesitant to burn that particular bridge.

So at best you were signing up with a 'partner' who, really, didn't contribute anything except a 'ration token' that only existed because Microsoft created that sort of artificial scarcity, a Publisher who in exchange for the token would often get a piece of the ENTIRE pie, not just the part they were 'helping' with. They weren't contributing to development costs, weren't doing aaaanything to help make the game, just holding a golden key with one hand, and holding the other out for payment.

The kicker is, this option was viewed as the lesser of two evils compared to publishing with Microsoft, with whom publishing meant giving the platform cut, and a publisher's cut, and agreeing to timed exclusivity at minimum. Given announcing to the world that your game will be coming out on Xbox 360 first generated a fair bit of bad PR, and hurt sales potential on future platforms, it was an option devs wanted to avoid at all costs. And said costs were, generally, pretty severe.

Reports from one Dev suggested that getting his title released on the Xbox 360 was vastly more expensive, and time consuming, than releasing on ANY of the other platforms, without really offering enough revenue to make the whole ordeal worth it. So it wasn't just a matter of whether a developer could afford it; more and more, it became a matter of 'Why am I bothering with all this junk at all, when I can go publish over there, ignore the Xbox platform entirely, and probably make more money in the long run?"

So by the time the Xbox One was readying for release, the indie devs were starting to drop away in droves and pass on the Xbox One altogether, which is why Microsoft ended up changing their policies to begin with. Because it wasn't just the shovelware devs that were leaving, it was actual indie devs who made games audiences LIKED, games that did well on their own merit. If they hadn't removed the Publisher requirement, forget just bad indie games, Microsoft would have been lucky to get that many GOOD ones on their platform, or indie games at all. =P

___

Anywhooo, back on topic I go. x3

To be specific, I do believe that there should be a gateway, as it were, even if it's a small team making sure that the game is not complete crap, making sure we don't get flooded with Flappy Bird clones, etc. Everything that has been streamlined, in terms of application time and cost, is great, but there should definitely not be any form of automated 'let em in when the counter strikes ten,' ala Greenlight. Right now Sony seeeems to be doing okay, if a bit over-enthusiastic, and I am hoping they'll reign that in and be a tad more discerning. If nothing else, I haven't yet seen any disasters on PS4 that match Soda Drinker Pro, and God knows those 'developers' (very loosely speaking) would get on PS4 if they had the chance. =P

But just like unmoderated self-publishing is getting abused by crap developers, Microsoft's old policies got abused by crap publishers. =P A balance needs to be found between the two, that will benefit both the developers who actually release games that draw an audience, and the audience that won't have to dig through mountains of crap to find it.

This wall... can't climb it.

Tell me in 2 sentences what you mean, please. No disrespect friend.


No worries! x3

Gist: Current policies, definitely, a 'let everyone in' method is a baaaad idea.

But the old Publisher requirement was abused by Publishers, and had it stayed, the Xbox One would have been ignored by plenty of popular indie devs, the ones who release games people actually like. Because it didn't simply become a matter of 'filtering the bad from the good,' it became a source of exploitation for publishers, a way to leech off the entire indie market without contributing anything but 'permission' to access one market. There are consumers interested in indie games; the old policies would basically have handed the console indie market to Sony on a silver platter and honesty, Microsoft would have deserved the loss.

 

...I could only manage four sentences. xD



Zanten, Doer Of The Things

Unless He Forgets In Which Case Zanten, Forgetter Of The Things

Or He Procrascinates, In Which Case Zanten, Doer Of The Things Later

Or It Involves Moving Furniture, in Which Case Zanten, F*** You.

Zanten said:


No worries! x3

Gist: Current policies, definitely, a 'let everyone in' method is a baaaad idea.

But the old Publisher requirement was abused by Publishers, and had it stayed, the Xbox One would have been ignored by plenty of popular indie devs, the ones who release games people actually like. Because it didn't simply become a matter of 'filtering the bad from the good,' it became a source of exploitation for publishers, a way to leech off the entire indie market without contributing anything but 'permission' to access one market. There are consumers interested in indie games; the old policies would basically have handed the console indie market to Sony on a silver platter and honesty, Microsoft would have deserved the loss.

 

...I could only manage four sentences. xD

Thank you. I agree with you there.

I only became aware of this in 2014. I noticed that a lot of MS published Arcade games are released on Steam by the devs themselves, thus everybody saying "most of Xbox games are on Steam". Meanwhile, indies/arcade titles not published by MS, were not allowed to be published outside of the designated platforms by publishers that "forced" devs to relinquish the ownership of their IPs. I agree with Indie devs on that.



Around the Network
Goatseye said:
MikeRox said:

What you call indie, is home brew.

All the games in my post were actual REAL indie games.

This is what I call Indie.

One of my defintion: Tom Happ is the sole developer, artist, and musician of the game, and began work on it in March 2010 as a side project

 

Oddly, the quote did not carry over the video. xP Anyway, yeah, definitely doesn't look like a blockbuster title, but it's still nowhere close to how bad things might become; there are 2D platformers, indeed, but ones that seem to find an audience despite retro graphics, or maybe even because of them. Simply being 2D, or a platformer, isn't a mark against a game, as it falls into 'taste' more than outright, objective failure, especially if they have a redeeming quality, such as story or mechanics.

For objective failure...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEOsE1Z_lUo

(Don't know how to insert videos. ._. )

That's Soda Drinker Pro. Apparently the Xbox One version has Kinect integration! You can use Kinect to drink a soda! =O Surprisingly, it is not actually funded by Mountain Dew, as far as I know. Anyway, some more examples on Steam (I won't haul out videos, don't want to clutter the page, but they're on Youtube) are 'A New Reckoning,' 'Air Control,' games that are 3D, in some cases barely, and are just... just... EW. That is the biggest risk of an unfiltered, unmoderated stream of games; not just games that a piece of the market won't enjoy, (and let's face it, some people WILL enjoy a Metroidvania-esque platformer, no?) but games with just... NO redeeming value. o.O



Zanten, Doer Of The Things

Unless He Forgets In Which Case Zanten, Forgetter Of The Things

Or He Procrascinates, In Which Case Zanten, Doer Of The Things Later

Or It Involves Moving Furniture, in Which Case Zanten, F*** You.

Goatseye said:

Thank you. I agree with you there.

I only became aware of this in 2014. I noticed that a lot of MS published Arcade games are released on Steam by the devs themselves, thus everybody saying "most of Xbox games are on Steam". Meanwhile, indies/arcade titles not published by MS, were not allowed to be published outside of the designated platforms by publishers that "forced" devs to relinquish the ownership of their IPs. I agree with Indie devs on that.


You're welcome. ^_^

In the case of Microsoft, (I'm not sure about Sony, as the PS4's full roster of Indies is uncertain, so I don't know if any SDPs are on the horizon,) this bizzare floodgate approach might be a bit of a rebound response. They had policies that were becoming so unpopular and toxic to the indie community, they wanted to go out of their way to say 'Look! Look! We're friendly now!' Only they want to be seen as indie-friendly so much, for the moment at least they're not even being enough of a 'bad guy' to tell someone trying to sign up, 'Er, look. ...your game is crap. Like. Seriously. Soda?' They might bounce back in awhile, find a more reasonable balance.



Zanten, Doer Of The Things

Unless He Forgets In Which Case Zanten, Forgetter Of The Things

Or He Procrascinates, In Which Case Zanten, Doer Of The Things Later

Or It Involves Moving Furniture, in Which Case Zanten, F*** You.

Zanten said:

Oddly, the quote did not carry over the video. xP Anyway, yeah, definitely doesn't look like a blockbuster title, but it's still nowhere close to how bad things might become; there are 2D platformers, indeed, but ones that seem to find an audience despite retro graphics, or maybe even because of them. Simply being 2D, or a platformer, isn't a mark against a game, as it falls into 'taste' more than outright, objective failure, especially if they have a redeeming quality, such as story or mechanics.

For objective failure...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEOsE1Z_lUo

(Don't know how to insert videos. ._. )

That's Soda Drinker Pro. Apparently the Xbox One version has Kinect integration! You can use Kinect to drink a soda! =O Surprisingly, it is not actually funded by Mountain Dew, as far as I know. Anyway, some more examples on Steam (I won't haul out videos, don't want to clutter the page, but they're on Youtube) are 'A New Reckoning,' 'Air Control,' games that are 3D, in some cases barely, and are just... just... EW. That is the biggest risk of an unfiltered, unmoderated stream of games; not just games that a piece of the market won't enjoy, (and let's face it, some people WILL enjoy a Metroidvania-esque platformer, no?) but games with just... NO redeeming value. o.O

Isn't total free reign on the development and pusblishing process what the Indie developers and Sony boasting about since Feb 2013?

It is a big advantage for a small team dev but have people seen Mineclones on XBLA Indie section? Avatar COD games?

I'm pretty sure that Sod Drink garbage is gonna get a major rehaul.



Goatseye said:

Isn't total free reign on the development and pusblishing process what the Indie developers and Sony boasting about since Feb 2013?

It is a big advantage for a small team dev but have people seen Mineclones on XBLA Indie section? Avatar COD games?

I'm pretty sure that Sod Drink garbage is gonna get a major rehaul.


As near as I can tell, Sony's approach (at least currently) is to reduce the number of steps between a developer beginning the process, and a developer finishing it; whereas I believe Sony's old policies had a 64-step protocol for a developer to get their game published on the platform, the new policies streamlined it to only a few steps. This doesn't necessarily mean (or, rather, doesn't have to mean) throwing open the doors and saying 'EVERYONE ON BOARD!' There can still be a '...are you ****ing kidding me?' stage to keep things from reaching Xbox Indie Market levels of crap; they just clearcut a lot of the bureaucracy, the paperwork, the frustrating and time consuming process of making everything happen, so a dev can get from A to Z that much more quickly.

They've also taken a greater, active interest in finding popular or anticipated indie titles on other platforms, primarily PC, sometimes before they've even released, and approaching the devs about bringing their game over to Playstation as well. Popular, quirky games, like Octodad or Surgeon Simulator, or even unreleased, but interesting looking titles. I believe they actually have a small team whose entire job IS finding worthwhile indie games, and coaxing them over to the platform.

Then there's the PubFund, a sort of against-royalties loan that Sony sometimes offers to worthwhile devs to help fund their game to completion, (basically, they give you ten thousand dollars, and take an extra chunk of your earnings, but ONLY until that ten thousand is paid off.)

 

 

TL;DR" Their approach seems to be both more aggressive, and (for the moment,) more restrained than just throwing open floodgates; they openly court promising indie developers, they've streamlined the red tape to make applying easier, and even have measures to help fund independant game development for devs they believe in without demanding exclusivity or owning the IP.



Zanten, Doer Of The Things

Unless He Forgets In Which Case Zanten, Forgetter Of The Things

Or He Procrascinates, In Which Case Zanten, Doer Of The Things Later

Or It Involves Moving Furniture, in Which Case Zanten, F*** You.

MikeRox said:
Mr.Playstation said:
I really don't like indies for one reason. They ruined the PS vita.

You could argue that indies have saved Vita. Would there be much of anything at all coming out for it without them?

I'm baffled by the "indie" hate purely because 99% of the people hating indie gaming don't actually seem to understand what an indie game is. I thought Half Life 2 and Left 4 Dead etc from Valve were cracking games ;)

Valve was nowhere near an Indie studio at that time.



                                                                                                               You're Gonna Carry That Weight.

Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC