Unionization of Game Developers

[StGabe]

Name any industry dominated by publishers where it is at all common for independent authors to directly market their stuff (and actually make any money)?  Umm . . . . right.

Maybe it's not because everyone who doens't work for a publisher is an idiot.  Maybe it's because the market (created by consumers) simply has no place for that right now.  Indie movies, indie music, indie games.  They're all in the same place, more or less.  Success for any of these three is actually squeaking out just enough attention to have someone who actually has capital buy you.  Because the cost of entering the market on your own as a late entrant is simply too prohibitive.

Gabe.

[StGabe]

oops

[HaemishM]

Actually, the indy groups may have more costs to them, but removing the publisher's cut from their cost would probably allow them to offer the product to EB for less than the publisher does. One less hand in the cookie jar means less people to split that money with.

Also, there are instances of indy success. Dave Sim's Cerebus in the mid to late 80's in comic books, in which he sold graphic novelizations of his indy comic directly to comic stores as opposed to going through the distributors.

Also, consumers can only buy what's offered to them in the stores. Guess who determines that? The publishers and the retail chains. There are indy games that would sell but haven't been offered the chance. They might not sell as well as the Blizzard games, but they also don't need that level of success. For MMOG's, just look to Puzzle Pirates and A Tale in the Desert for examples.

[StGabe]

Also, there are instances of indy success.

The existence of certain exceptions rules is not a proof of concept for a general principal.

For MMOG's, just look to Puzzle Pirates and A Tale in the Desert for examples.

Both of which picked up publishers, no?  We can either: (a) assume they did this because they are idiots or sellouts or (b) assume they did this because well, they actually needed money and weren't making it on their own.  ATitD barely even makes SirBruce's chart even though it is a very innovative and interesting game (there have been text-based muds that get better numbers).  It certainly is not making that much money.  I don't know about Puzzle Pirates.

All of this hyperbole is based on the naive notion that it is actually easy to market directly to retailers and no one is doing it just because they are stupid.  But that couldn't be further from the truth.  There are lots of really smart people working in the game industry (or who want to work there) and almost all of them would prefer to work independently.  The fact that they aren't succeeding isn't some cosmic anomale and isn't explained by some 1-dimensional characterization of this entire group of people as irrational egomaniacs.  It all has to do with the realities of a market that simply has no room for these guys right now and will have to change if it is ever to do so.

Gabe.

[Stephen Zepp]

As far as I am aware, most of the money retailers make comes from the purchase of shelf space and display presentation, not retail markup. Publishers (or the indys if that's the route they go) actually pay premium prices (and not simply cheaper wholesale prices) for premium shelf space and even the direction of the box (is it facing outwards, or just the binding showing, or?).

This may have changed, but 5 years ago when I researched it that was the common "cost" associated with getting a chain to carry a product. And it's a hefty pricetag.

[Roac]

As far as I am aware, most of the money retailers make comes from the purchase of shelf space and display presentation, not retail markup.

Yes.

Publishing houses do a lot more as well, including things like getting products talked about in magazines, getting promo copies into the hands of the right people, having good research on appropriate advertisement, etc.  Publishing houses are a massive resource in any industry.  People can chalk it up to selling out if it makes them feel better, but truth be told, we wouldn't have access to all the game we do without them.

[HaemishM]

Also, there are instances of indy success.

The existence of certain exceptions rules is not a proof of concept for a general principal.

For MMOG's, just look to Puzzle Pirates and A Tale in the Desert for examples.

Both of which picked up publishers, no?  We can either: (a) assume they did this because they are idiots or sellouts or (b) assume they did this because well, they actually needed money and weren't making it on their own.  ATitD barely even makes SirBruce's chart even though it is a very innovative and interesting game (there have been text-based muds that get better numbers).  It certainly is not making that much money.  I don't know about Puzzle Pirates.

First off, if you rely on Bruce's chart for any accurate numbers of the MMOG industry, more's the fool you.

Secondly, EGenesis (makers of ATiTD) did not pick up a publisher that I'm aware of. Their initial release netted them between 2,000 and 3,000 subscribers, I think. That was DOUBLE what they needed to be profitable. Double. Without a publisher or even a box on the shelf, completely through net distribution and word of mouth. They were profitable enough to release a sequel. If you don't think that is a wildly successful story, you are insane.

It's not about making bazillions of dollars, it's about being profitable, which is a different number for every business. Success does not have to mean getting 1.5 million subscribers, especially when your game is in no way mainstream.

As for Puzzle Pirates, they didn't need a publisher. They got the game released and by all accounts running well without a publisher. Which I'm sure meant when they did go to (or got approached by) a publisher, they were much more able to dictate favorable terms to themselves, as opposed to having to take any shitty deal offered because they needed money. If you can produce a good game without a publisher, that is at least profitable, you can do this sort of thing. It just takes more effort.

It doesn't require that game developers form some sort of employees union to force publishers to not treat them like fucking slaves. Just like consumers buying any old shiney shit that gets pushed out as the next big thing, employees should not degrade themselves to work in conditions they KNOW are bad beforehand. Unions won't give you that kind of self-respect, they'll just dictate that companies not take advantage of your lack of backbone.

[StGabe]

They were profitable enough to release a sequel. If you don't think that is a wildly successful story, you are insane.

I think that it's easy to spin your business as a success if you don't count the time that you actually spent on the project.  And from what I understood they did get a publisher or other form of outside investment.  But I could be wrong.  Where did you get the profitability numbers from?  As far as I could tell (from lurking the beta forums), ATitD was a monolithic project worked on by some German fellah (who seemed like an intelligent enough guy) who somehow managed to have 3-4 years to just work on the game and do nothing else.  Ok, that's cool.  But that one or two people can afford to do this, and not actually lose money, is not evidence that there is an opening in the market to challenge Vivendi/EA or really a rationale for railing against game devs that they don't perform magic.  Maybe the problem is not that game devs don't know business, maybe they know it too well.

It doesn't require that game developers form some sort of employees union to force publishers to not treat them like fucking slaves. Just like consumers buying any old shiney shit that gets pushed out as the next big thing, employees should not degrade themselves to work in conditions they KNOW are bad beforehand.

Easy to say, but I'm not sure it has any correlation to reality.  As I allude to above, the life of an independent game developer is probably not nearly as rosy as you make it out to be.  And you are not telling me about all the crash and burns that you never heard about.  For every Kevin Smith there are probably hundreds if not thousands of guys who put together something cool like Clerks and still never made a dime.  Game devs don't exist to please you.  And having a dependable income, the ability to pay for a family, save for retirement, take vacations, etc., well, is sort of important to some people for whatever bizarre reasons.

Gabe.

[HaemishM]

Game devs exist to make games, which are meant to please me.  Dance, little man, dance.

ATiTD was done as a garage project by 2 guys. It has never had a publisher. All the numbers about its success were straight from EGenesis itself, when they released version 1 of the game. They needed either 1000 or 1500 users to break even, they got twice that. They did other things while working on the game.

You keep forgetting that I don't want these indy devs to 'challenge' EA. I don't give a fuck (nor do I think it will happen) if EA is still around and putting out shit in 5 years or not. I just want to see more games, more good games, and I want guys like Troika, Looking Glass, Irrational, Creative Assembly, etc. be able to make profits off their games without being hamstrung by publishers. Because when successful dev houses like Looking Glass and Troika, with multiple successful games sold, can't make ends meet, something is wrong with the industry.

[StGabe]

You said:
You keep forgetting that I don't want these indy devs to 'challenge' EA

Earlier you said:
Here's the problem. People who want to make games don't want to be bothered to learn how to run a fucking business. It's as simple as that. The only reason the industry is so parasitically-attached to these vapid, soulless, marketing-speak cockmeat business types is that the business types know how to run a fucking business well enough to keep it from totally tanking. They know how to play the system. Game developers don't want to learn all the ins and outs of that. They just want someone to automagically come and take those problems away from them. Then they get all pissy when they realize that THOSE FUCKERS NOW HAVE THE POWER THAT YOU GAVE THEM. They control the purse strings, so they control the game. They can tell your developer ass when by hell or highwater your game is going to be on store shelves, whether it formats every fucking hard drive it comes into contact with or not. They are the creators of the "release now, patch later" school of thought, but they couldn't do that if they didn't have the power given over by the developers.

You could have just said: ok, I guess I changed my mind. 

Gabe.

[HaemishM]

How is that changing my mind? Unless you think that by challenging EA, I mean eradicate them from the face of the earth. I just want them to not have to rely on EA and others of that ilk.

[StGabe]

I just want them to not have to rely on EA and others of that ilk.

And yet, to actually have a decent chance of eeking out a living, the current market (created by consumers) dictates that this is necessary.  And you blame developers for a market they didn't create where the only way to change that market would mean challenging EA.

Very simple.  Consumers currently go apeshit over the stuff EA goes out.  Therefore no market for Indy games.  Therefore game developers need to sell out to make any money.  Changing that means changing the market to where consumers are willing to consider non big budget stuff which means challenging EA.

Gabe.

[Pococurante]

id enjoyed runaway success by self-publishing/distributing.  And did so when the internet was a handful of geeks with ISDN.

Why is this so hard now?  Too many choices clogging the market?

[Strazos]

Such a shame, Gabe single-handedly killed this thread for me.

News flash: italics make things harder to read, not easier.

[Margalis]

id enjoyed runaway success by self-publishing/distributing.  And did so when the internet was a handful of geeks with ISDN.

Why is this so hard now?  Too many choices clogging the market?

Well, let's look at Wolf3D and Doom. They were at the time relatively new, and they were technically excellent for their time. That's not easy to do. Id enjoyed great success, that's wonderful. But unless you can name a dozen more, they are the exception that proves the rule. In the entire lifetime of computer games how many Id style success stories have their been? Not a whole lot. It's not like it was EASY then. It was hard then too!

I would also point out that back in the day people would build their own computers and type in programs they got from byte magazine, and Id was at the tail end of that phase of computer life. For better or for worse the industry is a lot more mature now.

Id's success story is not a repeatable model. They had the right timing and a huge amount of talent.

[Stephen Zepp]

Out of curiosity: how many of those that want to see Indy developers succeed have played:

Gish
Outpost Kaloki
Dark Horizons: Lore
Breakquest
I of the Enemy (ok, this one is going semi-"pro" I think)
WIK and the Fable of Souls
Void War

I'd venture to guess that at least 90% of this community have never even heard of any of these games, much less purchased any of them, yet they are the current list of "top" Indy Games over the last several months.

And the fact that most of the people here have never heard about them only goes to reinforce the fact that the current market really does need a way to get the information about Indy Games somehow, because current marketing strategies simply cannot compete with publishing houses.

[Jayce]

Such a shame, Gabe single-handedly killed this thread for me.

News flash: italics make things harder to read, not easier.

Seconded.  I tried to follow it while ignoring Gabe's posts but he is too integrated into the conversation. I'll just wait till he drops out of it I guess.

[MaceVanHoffen]

And yet, to actually have a decent chance of eeking out a living, the current market (created by consumers) dictates that this is necessary.

At the risk of speaking for other people, that phrase is exactly why you won't get much agreement here.  You're basically defending the way things are now by saying that the way things are now won't allow change.  Who says the publisher model is the best way?  Oh, that's right ... publishers (and you) do.

The "current market" is just a frozen moment in time.  Things can and do change.  Enough people are starting to get pissed off about the publisher model that something will be done about it.  Unions?  Maybe.  And maybe something worse than the publisher model will arise.  But the current publisher model is not stable precisely because it hurts so many people.  You have high profile developers picking up their marbles and leaving the industry, and that's always a sign of change.  Eventually developers will realize that they outnumber publishers even if they don't outgun them (gun ==  money).

[Pococurante]

Well, let's look at Wolf3D and Doom.

ATITD?

If we're focusing on "runaway success" I agree a self-published indie isn't going to threaten Blizzard anytime soon.  "But highly lucrative and a cash cow to spin up to the next level" seems achievable and isn't affected by the factors you observe.

I suspect the problem may be too many devs want to live large with a homerun on their first release, and not take the long established path of growing a business over time.  Like Mythic did.  Heck people still pay to play Gemstone...

[Margalis]

If we're focusing on "runaway success" I agree a self-published indie isn't going to threaten Blizzard anytime soon.  "But highly lucrative and a cash cow to spin up to the next level" seems achievable and isn't affected by the factors you observe.

I suspect the problem may be too many devs want to live large with a homerun on their first release, and not take the long established path of growing a business over time.  Like Mythic did.  Heck people still pay to play Gemstone...

Look at it from the perspective of a developer who is a game enthusiast. Sure, I can start small and make a game that may make some profit, then based on the profits of that become a TINY bit more ambitious, and so on...and most likely it will take me years and years to start making the sort of games I want to make.

Growing a business over time is tough in the game industry. It's not like starting a store chain. If I open a store then another and the second does poorly I can close it and the first one is still making some money. For most growing dev houses one failure is enough to sink the business.

I would also hardly call ATITD a runaway success. Some profitability is not a huge success.

[Pococurante]

I'm a veteran of the dot bomb era.  I could give a rat's ass about a company unwilling to suck it up and grow a business the old-fashioned way.  If I had a rat's ass to spare.  Rationalize it? Sure.  Excuse it.  No.

"Some profitability" is what separates the failures from the winners.

[StGabe]

OMG, I can't read Lord of the Rings anymore.  It has italics in it.  Gah!

*smirk*

You're basically defending the way things are now by saying that the way things are now won't allow change.  Who says the publisher model is the best way?  Oh, that's right ... publishers (and you) do.

I'm not saying that.  I don't think that the publisher model is the best, that's for sure.  But it is there because it is the most successful (OMG, more italics!).  That is, consumers are giving bucketloads of money to publishers for doing things they way they do them and until consumers stop doing that there is no reason for the market to magically change.  Alternatives exist (as Stephen Zapp points out) and consumer's simply don't give a rat's ass.

Enough people are starting to get pissed off about the publisher model that something will be done about it.

I never said this couldn't happen.  Markets do change, certainly.  I don't think we'll see these changes coming about easily however.  The book, music and movie publisher relationships are shitty too, and people hate them, and yet they still retain pretty strong control over their markets.  The fact remains that 99% of game consumers don't give a shit or more importantly don't know enough to give a shit and don't think they need to learn any more.  Or even if they do give a shit, they're still not willing to actually change their buying patterns or taking time to actually look at the the current Indy titles.  I admit I'm in the latter category.  I am more likely to buy a game that comes from a smaller game company but I don't really pay attention to truly indy game titles except in the MMO genre or if it's related to work.

Gabe.

[StGabe]

"Success" seems to be that one company, once upon a time, didn't lose money.  Err, right.  A lot of people pretend their business is a success by ignoring the fact that they aren't paying themselves.  Somebody opens a store, can't afford to hire anyone and so they work 60 hours a week in the store.  The end of the year comes around and they are excited because they made actual profit.  They fail to mention that their hourly wages come out to around $2/hour or whatever. :P  I suspect but cannot prove that this is basically the case with ATitD. 

And this is like making a movie.  The Kevin Smiths of the world exist.  But for each one of them there are a few hundred or thousand poor slobs who starved for their art and didn't get a dime.  That isn't exactly a viable business plan.  In other words, just because one person or company, once upon a time, did an independent title and made some money does not mean that anyone else who does this is like likely to do the same.

Gabe.

[StGabe]

Ok, one more post.  I'd just like to say that one of the most important things that a union can do is simply raise awareness and share information.  One of the things mentioned in the gamasutra article that I think is key is talk of limiting how employees discuss their salaries and work times.  That is the stuff that makes capitalism stop doing the good, happy things that economists would like to tell us it should.  You need available, in your face information so that when two parties are acting in an exchange (game consumer and publisher or developer and publisher, for example), they know the facts.  That's one of the things that a good union will help with.  By having a central, influential group that can share and spread information, and advocate to all the different parties in the game market, you can get a better approximation of what capitalism is supposed to do. 

For example, there is a mention of people at EA saying, "no, there is too much publicity about our work hours right now to go to a 6 day work week".  Yay information.  By making people aware of those conditions you make the conditions themselves have a negative impact on EA's bottom line, which ultimately in a capitalist model, is the only way to get actual change.

Gabe.

[Margalis]

"Success" seems to be that one company, once upon a time, didn't lose money.  Err, right.  A lot of people pretend their business is a success by ignoring the fact that they aren't paying themselves.  Somebody opens a store, can't afford to hire anyone and so they work 60 hours a week in the store.  The end of the year comes around and they are excited because they made actual profit.  They fail to mention that their hourly wages come out to around $2/hour or whatever. :P  I suspect but cannot prove that this is basically the case with ATitD. 

That was my line of thought as well. The sucess that Id had allowed them to staff up and move on to bigger and better things. A lot of the indy game makers that make things like puzzle games and the like may technically make a profit but may not really get them any closer to an end-goal.

To me a successful game is a game that turns a decent profit that allows you re-invest in your company without requiring your employees to work for pennies or have day jobs.

There are a lot of "successful" indy bands that turn a small profit where all the members have day jobs. In fact, that's nearly all of them. That's more breaking even than succeeding.

[Strazos]

OMG, I can't read Lord of the Rings anymore.  It has italics in it.  Gah!

*smirk*

OMG, it's like, not even in the same format or font.

Read the third line of my sig, kthx.

[Murgos]

OMG, I can't read Lord of the Rings anymore.  It has italics in it.  Gah!

*smirk*

Typical developer response.  Ignore the fact that people have actually taken the effort to say that something isn't working as intended but take the time to respond with an example from a completely different media that serves an entirely different purpose and toss in a put down.

Hey, dipshit, the italics aren't very legible here with the background and fonts that are in use why don't you use the fucking quote system thats in place, works and accepted?

[Jayce]

The sucess that Id had allowed them to staff up and move on to bigger and better things.

I think also that it has to be not about the money.  That's probably needless to say around here, but in the context of id, I'd say that even if they had never made dollar one, Carmack would still be in his parents' basement banging out new 3d engines.

Hey, dipshit, the italics aren't very legible here with the background and fonts that are in use why don't you use the fucking quote system thats in place, works and accepted?

Because he wants to prove what a special and unique snowflake he is, is my guess.

[Margalis]

At some point you need money, unless you are independently wealthy. And people with day jobs just can't get as much done. It's all fine to say that if you really LOVE what you do you will have a day job and shut out the possibility of things like free time and a rewarding family life, but I think that's kind of silly personally. It's not a good solution.

[Teppy]

Well a few mistakes above. Here's the real story:

We built A Tale in the Desert with 3 full-time people over a 4.5 year timespan on about $1.1M. Actual cash outlay was a bit less because we did all sorts of stuff like trade company stock for rent and legal fees. Most of the cash came from me personally, credit cards, loans, etc. Also, several outside people invested smaller amounts.

We've handled distribution, the live team, maintenance and billing ourselves. We had other companies do translation (MDO Games for German, Alchemic Dream for French), and Music (Heavy Melody Music.)

We're fine cash flow-wise as long as we're above 1000 paid subscribers. We're around 1500 now, and over the course of Tale 1 and 2 we've been anywhere from 1150 (last day of Tale 1) to 2500 (peak in Tale 2, around day 30.)  Overall, Tale 2 has been 15%-20% better than Tale 1.

"Fine Cash Flow-wise" is not the same as profitable: there's that $1.1M that was invested to build the company and first game. So to an investor, eGenesis isn't yet a success.

BUT - developing the next game is now a *whole lot* easier, because of the knowhow gained and technology created. I've got some fascinating stuff planned for the Tales of Alvin Maker (based on the Orson Scott Card series) - and there's no way I could pull that off without having first done A Tale in the Desert. (Nor would we have had the chance!)

[Strazos]

Hey, thanks for the info Teppy. I've always kind of wanted to try out ATitD and become a local magistrate or something and regulate unions and levy taxes....but I've never had people to play along with that I knew (I hate playing alone).

Shoot us a few Beta accounts if you like, I'd be more than happy to give your project a spin around the block....or something, if I have the time.

Here's to the Underdogs of the industry.

PS: Screw those investors and that "profitable" noise; if you're in the black and breaking even, and putting food on the table, and doing something you love, it sounds like a success to me.

[MaceVanHoffen]

I've got some fascinating stuff planned for the Tales of Alvin Maker (based on the Orson Scott Card series) -

Oh man, I hadn't heard anything about a game based on Card's Alvin Maker series.  I'd be all over that.  Is that in beta anytime soon?  I'd dedicate serious time to helping out wherever I could.

[HaemishM]

PS: Screw those investors and that "profitable" noise; if you're in the black and breaking even, and putting food on the table, and doing something you love, it sounds like a success to me.

Thanks a bunch, Teppy, for wading into what could very well have been a contentious topic for yourself. I've never played your game, mainly because I must have combat in my games, but I've always respected it. I look forward to seeing your Orson Scott Card game, and hoping it has some killin' in it.  :-D

My version of success is based on what Strazos said here: if you're in the black (which does mean paying off the investors), eating well enough (Ramens only 1 time a week), and being paid for doing what you love, that's the best measure of success I can think of.

[WayAbvPar]

My version of success is based on what Strazos said here: if you're in the black (which does mean paying off the investors), eating well enough (Ramens only 1 time a week), and being paid for doing what you love, that's the best measure of success I can think of.

You forgot about nubile young women and hats made of money!

Hope the new game goes well for ya Teppy. I think you and your team have a lot of interesting things to bring to the genre.

[HaemishM]

I think we may have to award Teppy a "Not Being a Cockmunch Developer Award."

It's high praise for the industry.