Hobbyists vs. Professionals
On sites where small game developers congregate, there’s a lot of verbal sparring between ‘indie’ developers and ‘casual’ developers.
‘Indie’ developers tend to make esoteric/niche games, often harkening back to the mid-80s when shoot-em ups ruled the arcades and action and RPG games dominated the C-64/Amiga markets.
‘Casual’ developers tend to make match-3 games, looking to Bejewelled and Zuma as their inspiration.
‘Indie gamers accuse casual developers of making only clones. I think both sides are making clones, it’s just that the games cloned by indie gamers are 20 years old, versus 2 years old for the casual gamers.
Really though, I think the split comes down to this: Indie developers are quite often hobbyists, casual developers are professionals. Hobbyist developers want to make games that they love, and if it makes money, that’s a bonus. Professional developers want to make games that make money, and if they love the game, that’s a bonus.
I don’t mean to be disparaging in calling indie developers hobbyists. Hobbies are a good thing. If your hobby has a small income potential, so much the better. Once upon a time, semi-pro ‘crafty’ hobbies were quite popular. Men would use their elaborate tool sets to make wooden crafts and sell them at craft fairs. Women would make quilts or knitted sweaters. Payback for time invested wasn’t that high, but they were making what they loved, and a bit of income off of it, too. If that’s how you view game making, then good for you – go ahead and make your old-school retro classic, and you might make $500-$2000 for 6-18 months of part-time effort. That’s more than I make for my hobby – watching Law & Order episodes.
But on the flip side, if this is your primary means of putting bread on the table, then you have to make concessions. Sure, make something you enjoy, but also make something others will buy as well.
And both sides, realize that the actions of the other side are different in large part because the motivations of the other side are different.
March 21st, 2006 at 4:45 pm
What we need is less verbal sparring and more games getting made. Make your game, whatever your motivation, and get it out there, whether it’s for an audience of millions or an audience of one.
And if anyone wants to create a title inspired by the classic M.U.L.E., I’ll preorder now. 😉
March 21st, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Niche games? You mean like ones that cater to model train enthusiasts?
March 21st, 2006 at 5:56 pm
So what old game does Positech’s Democracy clone? Is there no place in your view of indie designers for “pushing the field forward”?
March 21st, 2006 at 6:32 pm
I’ve only briefly looked at Democracy. It looks rather original, but I would say not entirely so. The little that I saw reminded me a bit of pieces of older games.
While all games stand on the shoulders of the ones that came before them, some are certainly more innovative than others, and Democracy would fall into that category. For that matter, there are some match-3s that are quite original and some that are bland clones.
March 21st, 2006 at 7:48 pm
I really wish people would stop grouping all indies in with people making Robotron clones. I challenge anyone to look at what we’re doing with Determinance (my link) and tell me we aren’t shooting for actual originality.
It seems like I can’t post a reply to this kind of article without sounding like I’m advertising, so I won’t describe what we’re doing; I’ll mention some other projects: Lugaru, Illuminata, Mount and Blade.
Plenty of indies are people who just want to do the games they love “better”, but we aren’t all like that.
Ian
Mode 7 Games
March 21st, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Ian, I agree, and I guess I painted with an overly broad brush. That said, a lot of folks touting ‘originality’ ARE just making glorified updates of 80s arcade games. I don’t have a problem with that type of game, I just don’t like the hypocrisy of those developers accusing casual game makers of being sell-out clone makers.
March 21st, 2006 at 8:28 pm
I’d like to see a further distinction between indie developers; between tribute games, “proper games”, and “attempting to push gaming forward” games. Our advantage as indies is not making small games, nor is it making tribute games. Our advantage is not having to answer to anyone.
No one who believes in gaming would suggest that all great gaming ideas have been realised. With more and more indies trying something properly new, a studio *will* hit the mark and start a new popular genre soon, and others will follow.
Unfortunately, the indies who succeed in this fashion will immediately stop being considered as indies. This is what people need to remember: companies like Jagex drop out of the “indie space” as soon as they are successful. People don’t remember that a successful company emerged from grass-roots beginnings.
Ian
Mode 7 Games
March 21st, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Well said, Ian.
My point that I was trying to make earlier as well was that at one point Poptop was a small organization making niche games.. Now it’s, what, a really big organization making niche games?
Some of us indie guys aren’t trying to clone old arcade games, or anything – we have at least somewhat unique game concepts that we’re trying to push forward. The one thing we don’t have is large budgets. Yet. When we do, we probably won’t be indie anymore.
I’m not sure when I’m done making my game that I’ll be able to market it online – it might require a retail publisher to realize the biggest bottom line number. That means I’ll have been an indie up until the moment the game is released.. Funny stuff. 🙂
March 21st, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Hey Phil,
I can understand your frustration but I am more than a little disappointed with the generalities tossed around in your original post. To say that there are not professionals in the indie scene is simply not true. In fact, many of us in the indie movement have come from professional game development studios. How do you think indies got started? By declaring our independence from the studios.
I will agree that there is a pretty broad spectrum of talent out there. Lots of people are just getting their feet wet. When you don’t have experience you have to learn the hard way. To my knowledge none of us were born into game development…
As for the redundancy in casual games… I honestly think it IS a potential issue… but it is an issue in all video games. Hell, it is an issue in every medium known to man. It is just an extension of the global commodification that happens when something is shown to be of worth.
Regardless, I think ANY debate of casual vs. indie is unproductive. We are all in the same boat… trying to earn a buck doing what we love for a living while getting the man off our back. =)
If anyone messes with you about making casual games, just let it go… they are idiots anyway.
-Unk
March 21st, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Unk – no problem. It doesn’t bother me. But I was just trying to point out that some of the differences in viewpoint comes from the different motivations (fun versus earning a living), though there is certainly crossover.
And I also realize that not all ‘indie’ devs are hobbyists – I said they’re “quite often” hobbyists, which I think is true.
March 21st, 2006 at 11:54 pm
Hah! “Quite often…” I am not letting you off that easy. =)
There are definately some ‘aspiring’ indie developers out there. There are also those who do it just for kicks. There are also some guys with real talent that just need some guidance. But at least the guys who are serious but inexperienced have an in-road.
The gap between the between the hobbyists and the pros is going to widen within the next 5 years. Then all our games, casual and indie, will be sold side by side on the same channels as retail games and we will all be back working for the man again. =P
-Unk
March 22nd, 2006 at 5:09 am
>>I challenge anyone to look at what we’re doing with Determinance (my link) and tell me we aren’t shooting for actual originality.>…I think ANY debate of casual vs. indie is unproductive. We are all in the same boat… trying to earn a buck doing what we love for a living while getting the man off our back.
March 22nd, 2006 at 5:22 am
Hmmm… That last comment was mangled. I’ll try to recreate it:
>>I challenge anyone to look at what we’re doing with Determinance (my link) and tell me we aren’t shooting for actual originality.
Sure. From your website:
“Determinance is the first ever true swordfighting game… In 1998 Treyarch Software introduced Die By The Sword, the first game to offer direct control of your sword in a fighting game.”
>>…I think ANY debate of casual vs. indie is unproductive. We are all in the same boat… trying to earn a buck doing what we love for a living while getting the man off our back.
But we’re NOT all trying to earn a buck doing what we love. A purist often makes a game because he wishes to create something self-fulfilling. A professional develops with external factors explicitly in mind. In one scenario, the developer focuses development on his own self-centered desires. In the other scenario, the developer actively acknowledges his audience’s preferences and tastes. Yes, there is some overlap between hobbyists and professionals. But the divide is ubiquitous.
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:46 am
Ok. Now we are getting somewhere.
Look at the developers over at Garage Games… we have both casual and non-casual indie developers releasing titles… some of us work in both the casual and non-casual space.
This isn’t a debate over indies vs. casual developers at all. =) That is just a easy oversimplification so we can all fall into nice little categories of ‘us’ and ‘them’ while we do our finger waggling at each other.
This is a discussion about creativity vs. business and where one draws the line. Tough questions… good stuff to be talking about actually.
This debate is happening throughout the entire game industry. Look on the store shelves and you will see that 90% of the titles are just knock offs or rehashes of other games. This is because publishers make decisions based off of statistics… how well they think something is going to sell based off of last years hits.
This makes good business sense but it is destroying our industry. Moreover, it is taking a bunch of highly creative, brilliant, and talented individuals and putting them to work in an assembly line.
I think I have some pretty good business sense, but I also know there has to be a better way. A way which embraces both creativity and entrepreneurship.
Of course, if you guys are saying that you are happy with the state of the game industry overall then maybe I am reading the wrong blog. =)
-Unk
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Hmm… I always considered casual game developers as a subset of indies. I think part of the “us” versus “them” mentality is derived from the non-casual-game indie developers trying desperately to ward off getting lumped in as makers of “match three games” (which is an overgeneralization of casual game developers, too).
We have hobbyist “casual game” developers, professional “retro remake” developers, and a broad spectrum of people doing none of the above. There are guys with professional mindsets making a go of game development on the side, and wishy-washy amateurs trying to make a go of it as a full-time ‘pro’ job.
I think there’s some real concern among the professionally-minded that the market for casual games is getting over-saturated, and so it’s better to try and catch the wave of the “next big thing” or forge their own trail than jump into a category that is becoming increasingly unfriendly and unprofitable to new entrants.
I think one of the sincere problems we’re facing as a community is the inflammatory use of the term “clone.” Too many people leading the argument (on either side) are taking a black-and-white position that things must be either 100% new and unheard-of to be innovative, otherwise they are a creatively bankrupt CLONE. That’s a gross simplification that’s not doing any of us any good (but it does spark a ton of discussion, on the basis of its inflammatory position). It’s like the argument over who does and doesn’t qualify as an “indie.” (Oooh, you got your game partially funded by an investor, that means you can’t call yourself an indie anymore, neener!)
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:33 pm
I don’t quite understand the indie vs. casual arguement. To me indie has always meant independant and I don’t see how that has anything at all to do with the genre or originality of game produced.
As for making concessions to put bread on your table. I can see where your coming from. Fortunately to me making games is genuinely a hobby. However I do find many games made today to be soulless (both independant and publisher funded) and I wonder if this is partially a result of people making games for others rather than themselves (as well as the larger team sizes).
I asked the question on my own site “What makes a pro” in response to Jeff Tunnell’s blog on making profitable games. Got a couple of intersting replies but I’m still not sure myself… so many angles you can look at it from.
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:05 pm
I think Phil’s just trying to say that people should get off the back of “casual” developers. Personally I couldnt care less who does what to whom, but it’s interesting that its starting yet another debate.
I think Phil, to be fair, the casual realm doesnt do itself many favours in the “clone” market. Not that there’s anything bad about cloning a game, just that you can I think fairly level the claim that people who view casual games as a means to riches tend to start off with clones on the mind (look at 1goodgame.com who actually does a great job of tracking those.
Personally, I’m more interested in what makes casual games “tick” and what mechanics I can use from the casual titles myself. Those tokens of gameplay are the meat and potatoes of game development so its well worth looking at them from that point of view.
I dont think there is any point in drawing a destinction between hobbyist and professional because it serves no purpose. Unless we are talking to the media and want to push that angle.
March 22nd, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Get tae f***, as one of my Scots friends would say.
The difference between indie and casual is not ‘hobbyist’ and ‘professional’. It’s ‘ambitious’ versus ‘complacent’. There’s no law anywhere that says all game developers have to be out there, forging their new tomorrow or whatever, but this is what they are. Casual and some indie developers are simply in it for the money, the mortgage-paying opportunities and so on. They’re generating only noise, and none of them are ever going to make anything of value (Zuma, for instance. Yawn).
Indie, on the other hand, is the testbed of tomorrow. When the industry does eventually finish it’s journey toward Hollywood aping and realises how completely out of ideas that leaves it, then they’ll turn to the indie sector. Indie is where new franchises and gameplay ideas and celebrities will come from. The Cliffski’s of today may seem fringe and obsessed, but tomorrow they’re the up-and-coming turks, then the year after they’re the interesting innovators. Until one day, they’re suddenly cool new game director that everyone seems to be talking about.
That’s the model that we’re heading toward, and that’s why casual is basicalliy an exercise in trading the present at the expense of tomorrow.
March 22nd, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Nonsense.
Indie is the testbed of tomorrow? Have you LOOKED at most “indie” games out there? Have you noticed that GameTunnel.com (the “indie” games news & reviews site, with a de-emphasis on casual games) has an entire Category devoted to ONLY Aquanoid clones? Have you heard Jeff Tunnell complain about the number of unoriginal, crap-submissions they get at GarageGames that are nothing more than 3D Pac-Man games?
As Jason said above, casual games *WERE* the weird, out-there “niche” category only a few years ago. It caught fire, grew, and is starting to mature now. There’s still a ton of room for innovation, so long as you don’t restrict your definition of “casual” games to “match-three-color” games… though I’d expect there’s lots of room to innovate even within that narrow definition. Developers (big-budget or ‘indie’) who turn their nose up at what’s coming out of the casual game side of the fence do so at their own peril.
Maybe I’m just coming from a weird place, having been a “pro” for six years doing AAA console games (well, some were AAA at least…), and I’m now doing the indie-gaming thing as a hobby (but with a somewhat mercenary mindset, approaching it as a second job). I just can’t understand where this bile and name-calling is coming from.
March 23rd, 2006 at 7:14 am
Yeah, 99% of indie is nonsense. I agree. It’s like the way that 99% of dance music back in the day was also nonsense. And yet it spawned a trend. The lesson here is simply that good creativity is hard work.
But it’s also the testbed zone. Democracy, Darwinia, Ragdoll KungFu, Galactic Civilisations 2, Dad&Me, Kudos, Puzzle Pirates, EVE and so on are all indie games too, and they’re all a hell of a lot more exciting than anything mainstream that has come out on PC in the last 2 years by a considerable degree.
March 28th, 2006 at 10:08 am
[…] BTW, if you’ve only been reading the main entries on this blog, you’re missing out. Half the good stuff is in the comments – I thank all those who respond to the articles, even if they strongly disagree (especially if they strongly disagree). In particular, check out the back and forth on the Hobbyists vs. Professionals article, and the Portals are Good article. […]
March 30th, 2006 at 2:11 am
Sorry, I don’t buy this 🙂
“‘Indie’ developers tend to make esoteric/niche games, often harkening back to the mid-80s when shoot-em ups ruled the arcades and action and RPG games dominated the C-64/Amiga markets.”
No, indies create innovative games. That’s something you casual dudes don’t 😉