Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 25, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 25, 2014
PR Newswire
View All

If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:

What AAA can learn from indies -- according to indies Exclusive
What AAA can learn from indies -- according to indies
December 28, 2012 | By Colin Campbell

December 28, 2012 | By Colin Campbell
More: Indie, Programming, Art, Audio, Design, Production, Business/Marketing, Exclusive

Yesterday we asked some leading indie game developers about the lessons they had learned in the past year. Today, we ask what -- if anything -- big triple-A publishers could have learned from the indie game community in the last 12 months.

The indies we spoke to generally pointed out that big publishers can never truly attain the elusive "indie spirit." That's not meant as an affront, but the fact is that large game makers are set up in different ways and work to different scales.

And while indie games have enjoyed a very good year, it's rare for an independent game to achieve the sort of financial success that would muster a flicker of interest among triple-A publishers, who increasingly are about going big or going home.

Still, small independent game developers offer plenty of interesting insights into the overall game development ecosystem. Here are some of the takeaways.

Innovate with fewer people

Randy Smith is the developer of Waking Mars. He says, "I don't see much evidence that the industry proper is taking lessons from indie teams. It'd be nice to say they realize you can do amazing and innovative things with fewer people, but the truth is the larger triple-A studios are staffing up to 500 people on a big project, which is mind-blowing.

"The large game publishers are also heavy contenders in the mobile and casual space but mostly by refining existing formulas. It just seems like the two worlds don't overlap much yet -- triple-A just keeps evolving toward bigger and fancier, whereas indies are discovering and remembering how games can be high quality without a mountain of polygons and shaders. Both serve important roles in the overall ecosystem."

Respect the talented individual

Dean Dodrill, creator of Dust: An Alysian Tail, believes things might improve for talented individual within large corporations. "I would hope that large companies learn to respect their creative talent. The most talented individuals out there remain at large studios, but they aren't given the freedom to stretch.

"The big money still comes from triple-A titles, but those are also the costliest risks. And with the large number of studios and publishers going under, I would hope they'd stop chasing the same few genres and look at what's happening in the indie space."

Spread the risk

Steve Gaynor, who worked on the triple-A BioShock series at 2K, is now working on Gone Home with The Fullbright Company. He says that indies have shown that there are different ways to approach the problem of risk. "If they were learning from indies, I would think that triple-A would be making more, smaller bets with more, smaller teams of developers, to diversify their lineups and get their employees more invested in what they're working on.

"I'd think they would be letting their developers off the leash more, taking advantage of the huge influence of social media, allowing players to connect personally with the people making the games. I'd think they'd be branching out from traditional genres more and investing in giving players truly new experiences, to find new ways to stay relevant instead of burrowing deeper and deeper into known territory."

Dan Pinchbeck, creator of Dear Esther with thechineseroom adds, "It is as valid a business model to spend less on more games that all make a good return and spread the risk of that investment. If you spread the risk across a number of games, then if one flops, you've mitigated that loss by the successes. If you back one title only, it'd better be damn good, and you can end up having to keep sinking money into it, polishing and polishing that turd until it gleams in the sunlight.

"The last couple of years have proved you can make a really good return on a lower budget game, even with a tiny marketing spend. You might not have billboards and TV ads and retail shelf-space, and you might not make a gazillion dollars like Call of Duty, but you're not spending Call of Duty money, and that buys you a lot of creative freedom as well. That's pretty cool, and it's good business sense. So hopefully they'll continue to develop the understanding that investing in smaller teams, and then staying pretty hands-off and letting them do their thing is smart business."

Pay attention to indie-friendly business models

Kyle Pulver, creator of Snapshot with Retro Affect points out THQ's recent foray into an area traditionally reserved for indies. "Strangely enough the biggest example of big game publishers trying a recipe from the indie scene can be found right now at Humble Bundle. THQ has jumped on board with a massive pay-what-you-want sale, and although that might be directly related to their current financial situation, I think any big publisher or studio can learn a lot from what indies are doing in both commercial and creative spaces, just as indies can learn from the big studios."

Experiment within AAA

Nathan Vella created Super Time Force (pictured at top) with Capybara Games. He says, "I think developers everywhere see the growth of the independent games movement as validation of experimentation. This is something that everyone can learn from, and some large developers have already started leveraging. Bethesda's "Skyrim Jam" [YouTube] is a perfect example of large-scale devs applying this in a super positive way and seeing ridiculously positive results."

Don't try to be 'indie' if you're not

The Binding of Isaac and Super Meat Boy designer Edmund McMillen says large publishers are learning "nothing" from indies. "A lot of large game publishers try to figure out what indies are doing right and come to all the wrong conclusions. It's not something you can replicate in a very large studio because what indies have over large teams is just that, they aren't large teams, they don't have huge budgets that require great success to continue, they have the freedom to take big risks and speak honestly through their work, they have the freedom to experiment and improvise.

"Indies have a very clear voice," he adds, "their games represent who they are and aren't muddied by the control of their many bosses telling them what they should do to make their games sell more copies. Indies are individuals, and that's something large mainstream studios can never be."

Think of what 'indie' means

Derek Yu, maker of Spelunky, believes the biggest lesson might be learned by individuals working within large organizations. "Beyond a certain size I think it's hard to understand one another," says Yu. "It's clear, however, that individuals within those large companies are seeing a lot of potential within the indie scene -- it seems like each year more and more are taking the leap themselves.

"And that really highlights the importance of the word 'indie' to me. There's been a lot of discussion around what it stands for or whether we need the label at all, but at the end of the day, it's great that someone can look up 'indie' and discover a vibrant community of people that they may fit in better with. It emboldens people to take a chance on being happier."

Colin Campbell is a feature-writer for IGN.

Related Jobs

Red 5 Studios
Red 5 Studios — Orange County, California, United States

Graphics Programmer
Red 5 Studios
Red 5 Studios — Orange County, California, United States

Gameplay Programmer
Gearbox Software
Gearbox Software — Plano, Texas, United States

Server Programmer
Forio — San Francisco, California, United States

Web Application Developer Team Lead


Joel Nystrom
profile image
Why would AAA-businesses adopt indie-style business models? Doesn't matter if doing things indie-style can also be profitable; that's not how AAA is making money.

Of course, if you can't cut it in the AAA space then you would look at what the cool kids are doing, and change your business. But then you wouldn't be AAA anymore.

Adam Bishop
profile image
The point isn't that it can "also" be profitable, the point is that having more smaller projects spreads risk out so that your whole company isn't in danger if you suffer a few failures as has happenned with THQ recently. It's about setting up a sustainable business model that can keep people employed and maintain a steady stream of revenue rather than banking on a small number of projects to bring in huge revenue at one or two particular points in the year.

Joe McGinn
profile image
Ya it's kind of a dumb question ... as you can tell by the answers, which are all one or another version of, "Um, they can't?" (Not meant to be disparaging to either group - they are just different is all. It's like asking what can Michael Bay learn from quirky Hollywood indie movies ... well, nothing.)

k s
profile image
This all sounds like good advice, thanks for the write up.

TC Weidner
profile image
simple lesson they can learn, more chefs in a kitchen doesn't necessarily lead to better meals.

Ramon Carroll
profile image

Dave Hoskins
profile image
There is no such thing as an 'indie' Everybody is an independant developer. Stop pidgeon-holing everything!
It's the talent you employ that matters, and how well organised you are at negotiating the mess of egos and pride those creatives have. Paying people royalties or decent bonuses based on sales is a great way of securing quality too.

Adam Bishop
profile image
I know people dislike the term "indie", but the idea that there are no significant differences between the way Braid was made and the way Assassin's Creed 3 was made is absurd. There are meaningful differences, and developers/publishers fail to understand them at their own risk.

Dave Hoskins
profile image
The differences are the problem though. The corporate culture cannot be creative, and the hard working lone stars don't have the resources/time. There should be no differences, but that's too ideal, I realise that.

E Zachary Knight
profile image

"The corporate culture cannot be creative"

I will have to disagree with that. When the corporate structure is set up in a way that fosters creativity, it can be a great thing.

Take two examples, Valve and Double Fine.

Valve has a project set up that allows developers to break off at most any time to begin work on whatever they want. They get to move their desks at will and have a go at it. This structure has allowed them to create some really great games.

Double Fine has a different approach but one that works well. Every year, they take 2 weeks off of whatever they are working on and just create prototypes for new game ideas. Several games they have released in the past have come from these company wide game jams.

That is just two examples. Another that the games industry can learn from is Google's 20% program. In this, each employee is allotted 20% of their time to work on whatever they want. This is where a lot of their products, successful or not, have come from.

Creativity can happen in a corporate environment as long as you don't let bean counters control the show.

David Navarro
profile image

"The corporate culture cannot be creative"

While this is entirely true, a well-managed corporate culture will be aware of this fact and get out of the way of the creatives.

wes bogdan
profile image
Well indy could be a team of 6 or more concentrating on gameplay,level design and is it fun whereas AAA especially if it's yet another in a series has things pretty defined going in and does the hollywood bigger is better sequels has an army of people working on the game and usuially goes without much innovation just subtle refinement tweaks to the series.

Bugets have inflated on AAA games and are supposed to go up another 25% with ps4 and 720 which could either make products take longer or get rushed to market.

While i love the great production values in AAA graphics etc designers should get back to basics starting games indy creating innovation then build AAA around a stronger core.

Some AAAgames cores are so thin paper mario looks 3d and some indy games have a treasure trove of a core which seems odd but when you canget to the metal faster your gameplay can be the focus even if graphics are more colorful nes/snes basic 2d design over billions of colors in glorious 3d.

With ps3 and 360 looking so good already i doubt the nextboxes will fly off shelves look at wii u it's easy to find everywhere and ebay scalpers don't count as gamers so even if they buy thousands of systems combined they have no intrust except selling them for profit they're not gamers themselves so launch numbers should skew to adjust for them.

Erin OConnor
profile image
their games represent who they are and aren't muddied by the control of their many bosses telling them what they should do to make their games sell more copies.

This times infinity.

The biggest problem AAA companies have is that they are being run by accountants and not artists.

k s
profile image
This is a big part of why most AAA developers are in danger going forward. Yes a number of these games are enjoyable and look great but they're not all they can be cause someone with no creativity is deciding what goes in and what doesn't.

Not every game has to sell 10 million copies and generate $500,000,000+ in revenue. If your game is good enough to keep you and your team afloat that is good enough. Getting a little more doesn't hurt as long as it doesn't kill the artist in you.

It's not indie vs AAA, it's not even artists vs accountants, it's greed vs creativity. I do hope for the sake of the AAA side of the industry that creativity wins out in the end.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

Talat Fakhri
profile image
Sorry a bit of digression, but what game is in the headline background?

Aaron San Filippo
profile image
I believe it's Super Time Force