Electronic Arts says indie won't cut it
by Joshua "RegularX" Birk · in General Discussion · 05/18/2005 (4:50 am) · 114 replies
Not sure how many people took note of this:
"The high cost of game development means that only the largest companies can afford to be in the business. While low-budget movies can occasionally become hits, "it is now impossible to 'Blair Witch' this business," said Jeff Brown, vice president for corporate communications at Electronic Arts, referring to the successful independent film."
That was in the New York Times. I blabbed about in my blog, and from there you can hit Grand Text Auto's excellent declaration of Big Hair Games. Clearly it more or less annoyed me, as I would assume it aggravate many here. EA is being widly close-minded and egocentric here.
"The high cost of game development means that only the largest companies can afford to be in the business. While low-budget movies can occasionally become hits, "it is now impossible to 'Blair Witch' this business," said Jeff Brown, vice president for corporate communications at Electronic Arts, referring to the successful independent film."
That was in the New York Times. I blabbed about in my blog, and from there you can hit Grand Text Auto's excellent declaration of Big Hair Games. Clearly it more or less annoyed me, as I would assume it aggravate many here. EA is being widly close-minded and egocentric here.
About the author
#22
05/18/2005 (9:42 am)
Logan, amen. We need to stand out in some way to be attractive. 
#23
A major step most indies don't get to, I think of more indies succeeded at this step it would make indie games look like more of an "option" for gamers to look to.
(presently I suck *shrug*)
05/18/2005 (9:50 am)
A great quote from Joe MaruschakQuote:
2. SHIP SOMETHING!.. gotta say it.. if it ain't done.. then you suck. Pick something you can finish and finish it. Shipping is a milestone..and it feels great. Do what you gotta do to ship it. It is good if it looks good and plays great, but done is the only measure that really matters.
A major step most indies don't get to, I think of more indies succeeded at this step it would make indie games look like more of an "option" for gamers to look to.
(presently I suck *shrug*)
#24
05/18/2005 (9:53 am)
Yeah EA says some things but if we keep the rebel or uderdog mentality that will only take us so far. the old saying if you build it they will come just doesnt hold true. education of the game playing public is the thing. Games like Gish and Wik are being praised by indie gaming and 'mainstream' game industry channels alike however most people see indie games as primitive and dated (thats if the public knows the exist in the first place) we have to actually show them that there's alternative to doom 12 that's howwe'll start to see higher sales. I'm glad we have more outlets like GG and others but we need more and one day maybe we can blowup EA's deathstar they're building. 
#25
When I read most of these posts I think to myself... "Why are all these people whining like little girls?" Sorry guys but you are whining about something that really doesnt effect you. You have the ability to produce games and be successful, stop caring about what people say or think and just do it.
I can't even read this crap anymore. Most of you guys call yourselves indie developers (Guilty as charged) ... Think about this. . . . . An indie developer is someone who has shipped a game, if you haven't shipped a game you're not an indie developer... so unless you have shipped something, get to work shipping. Jeff Brown insulted indie developers. If you haven't shipped you shouldn't feel insulted, as it's your own limitations preventing you from succeeding, not Jeff's words.
05/18/2005 (9:59 am)
If it hasn't shipped then you suck? I have got to disagree. If you are putting your heart and full effort into the product then you don't suck. Most of the time you suck, because most of the time you're not doing that.... When I read most of these posts I think to myself... "Why are all these people whining like little girls?" Sorry guys but you are whining about something that really doesnt effect you. You have the ability to produce games and be successful, stop caring about what people say or think and just do it.
I can't even read this crap anymore. Most of you guys call yourselves indie developers (Guilty as charged) ... Think about this. . . . . An indie developer is someone who has shipped a game, if you haven't shipped a game you're not an indie developer... so unless you have shipped something, get to work shipping. Jeff Brown insulted indie developers. If you haven't shipped you shouldn't feel insulted, as it's your own limitations preventing you from succeeding, not Jeff's words.
#26
In my opinion I don't think the new game systems will be successful without indie games which is why all the systems support special download services like Xbox Live Arcade. All the 'AAA' games look identical. After watching the E3 press conferences the only games I can recall were Nintendogs, Electroplankton, and Killzone (only because it looked good and looked like actual gameplay).
Every other game just looked the same ... 'nearly reality' ... that's it. All the fancy lighting, bumps, etc... only serve to make the games look identical and after that they all just looked like cheesy sci-fi movies. If the 'AAA' industry keeps putting out the same crap only more realistic looking they're going to dig their own grave. What people find cool changes ... with this next generation almost all the games are rehashes of games from the previous generation and I don't think anyone really cares if the graphics are rendered in real time or not because the games still look about the same as what we've been seeing for the past 10 years.
Give American businessmen control of the game industry and what you get are higher prices, recycled games, and movie tie-ins ... see the Atari crash during the 80's to see where this is headed.
05/18/2005 (10:01 am)
Some people in this thread think that the guy is just ignorant but that's not it. With companies like Valve doing Half-Life2 independent and Irrational doing Freedom Force Vs. The Third Reich independent in addition to EA getting their butts sued by employees who probably talk about going indie vs. working 80 hours a week for the MAN EA does feel threatened. That wasn't just a stupid remark. In my opinion I don't think the new game systems will be successful without indie games which is why all the systems support special download services like Xbox Live Arcade. All the 'AAA' games look identical. After watching the E3 press conferences the only games I can recall were Nintendogs, Electroplankton, and Killzone (only because it looked good and looked like actual gameplay).
Every other game just looked the same ... 'nearly reality' ... that's it. All the fancy lighting, bumps, etc... only serve to make the games look identical and after that they all just looked like cheesy sci-fi movies. If the 'AAA' industry keeps putting out the same crap only more realistic looking they're going to dig their own grave. What people find cool changes ... with this next generation almost all the games are rehashes of games from the previous generation and I don't think anyone really cares if the graphics are rendered in real time or not because the games still look about the same as what we've been seeing for the past 10 years.
Give American businessmen control of the game industry and what you get are higher prices, recycled games, and movie tie-ins ... see the Atari crash during the 80's to see where this is headed.
#27
BY HAND.
If we have to place every rusty can, cardboard box, and crack in the wall, we've lost before we've begun.
But there's an alternative: Repeatable Random Content.
Does anyone remember Elite? 3-d space sim WAY back when. Apple][ erra. It had a HUGE universe. Incredibly vast. Lots of detail. But it shipped on a floppy or two. All that _content_ wasn't stored, it was generated.
There's an article in "Game Programming Gems 1" describing the technique in more detail, but it boils down to:
Set a random number seed.
Use that seed to create X top level objects (star systems)
In each system, use their seed to create Y sub-objects (planets)
You can use this technique to go down as deep as you're willing to go. Organelles in the local life form's cells. Whatever.
The amount of data is limitted only by the scope of your game. Do I want 100 stars or 1000? Same amount of work on your part either way.
The number of levels & the amount of detail at each level is where all the work is at. But because it's all generated from a single seed, you don't have to ship vast piles of pre-generated data, just the seed and the algorithms to create all that data (plus all the art/audio/etc needed to display that data, which is no small job either).
That's how those 70k FPS games work. They create their textures programmatically, probably create their geometry and audio that way too.
Cool stuff. You can't apply it to every kind of game out there (puzzles? Nope, probably not), but tre cool when you can swing it.
05/18/2005 (10:13 am)
One of the things that sets AAA apart from shoe-string-budget indies is the depth of their Content. An indie can't hope to create a game with the level of detail in something like HalfLife 2 (which was pretty doggone amazing).BY HAND.
If we have to place every rusty can, cardboard box, and crack in the wall, we've lost before we've begun.
But there's an alternative: Repeatable Random Content.
Does anyone remember Elite? 3-d space sim WAY back when. Apple][ erra. It had a HUGE universe. Incredibly vast. Lots of detail. But it shipped on a floppy or two. All that _content_ wasn't stored, it was generated.
There's an article in "Game Programming Gems 1" describing the technique in more detail, but it boils down to:
Set a random number seed.
Use that seed to create X top level objects (star systems)
In each system, use their seed to create Y sub-objects (planets)
You can use this technique to go down as deep as you're willing to go. Organelles in the local life form's cells. Whatever.
The amount of data is limitted only by the scope of your game. Do I want 100 stars or 1000? Same amount of work on your part either way.
The number of levels & the amount of detail at each level is where all the work is at. But because it's all generated from a single seed, you don't have to ship vast piles of pre-generated data, just the seed and the algorithms to create all that data (plus all the art/audio/etc needed to display that data, which is no small job either).
That's how those 70k FPS games work. They create their textures programmatically, probably create their geometry and audio that way too.
Cool stuff. You can't apply it to every kind of game out there (puzzles? Nope, probably not), but tre cool when you can swing it.
#28
He's clearly directing his words at anyone thinking about getting into game development. He's saying if you haven't invested in it, and you don't have a truckload of cash, then don't bother. He's saying that this is EA's show now, and thanks for the interest ... but don't call them - they'll call you.
But I do think Microsoft and Nintendo and perhaps Sony disagree with him ... probably for reasons that Jeremy is talking about. They want downloadable content. They want to be the middle man. EA doesn't want that, they want to keep their grip there as well. That's the open door I'm talking about. But it's going to take quality to get in.
05/18/2005 (10:13 am)
Well I disagree that Brown's words are intended for only people who have shipped a product.He's clearly directing his words at anyone thinking about getting into game development. He's saying if you haven't invested in it, and you don't have a truckload of cash, then don't bother. He's saying that this is EA's show now, and thanks for the interest ... but don't call them - they'll call you.
But I do think Microsoft and Nintendo and perhaps Sony disagree with him ... probably for reasons that Jeremy is talking about. They want downloadable content. They want to be the middle man. EA doesn't want that, they want to keep their grip there as well. That's the open door I'm talking about. But it's going to take quality to get in.
#29
05/18/2005 (11:37 am)
I know a lot of people who disagree with him, and they are making the consoles. 
#30
Pat's abso-friggin-lutely on target here. Look, Microsoft, and now apparently NINTENDO are opening up their consoles for indie games. No, they aren't going to be giving away a free develpment platform to any 14-year old kid with fantasies of making a better Halo 3, but it's very much attainable by a "serious" indie studio.
This isn't just some bone being thrown to indie developers. They wouldn't be doing it (and putting the kind of money they are putting into it) if they didn't consider it a SERIOUS asset. The "casual" game market is the fastest growing segment of the industry. This fact isn't being ignored. Microsoft WANTS Mom to buy her own games for the family X-Box, and they want those families that can't buy a $60 every month to be willing to shell out maybe $20 for a smaller indie game when they can. They want the huge library of titles that backwards compatability and budget studios can bring them.
Meanwhile, you've got the Emperor at EA insisting that the barbarians at the gate can't POSSIBLY get through this time, because this time they've built the walls 50% higher. So if you want to be making games, you'd BETTER get in line and join their indentured servitude program!
Look at the facts and draw your own conclusions. But I'm a half-full kinda guy. (Half full of WHAT, I won't say!)
05/18/2005 (12:40 pm)
AMEN PAT!Pat's abso-friggin-lutely on target here. Look, Microsoft, and now apparently NINTENDO are opening up their consoles for indie games. No, they aren't going to be giving away a free develpment platform to any 14-year old kid with fantasies of making a better Halo 3, but it's very much attainable by a "serious" indie studio.
This isn't just some bone being thrown to indie developers. They wouldn't be doing it (and putting the kind of money they are putting into it) if they didn't consider it a SERIOUS asset. The "casual" game market is the fastest growing segment of the industry. This fact isn't being ignored. Microsoft WANTS Mom to buy her own games for the family X-Box, and they want those families that can't buy a $60 every month to be willing to shell out maybe $20 for a smaller indie game when they can. They want the huge library of titles that backwards compatability and budget studios can bring them.
Meanwhile, you've got the Emperor at EA insisting that the barbarians at the gate can't POSSIBLY get through this time, because this time they've built the walls 50% higher. So if you want to be making games, you'd BETTER get in line and join their indentured servitude program!
Look at the facts and draw your own conclusions. But I'm a half-full kinda guy. (Half full of WHAT, I won't say!)
#31
...suits, b'ah, 'idea guys', cheez...you can practically see the sweat on someone's brow. While true; it may be extremely difficult to hit mega- 'franchise' status, there are exceptions to any 'rule of thumb'.
Never let anyone like that control your destiny...
Rex
05/18/2005 (8:22 pm)
"The Blair Witch Project" was produced for around $40,000. It has grossed to date well over $100 Million dollars. That's quite a return on investment. I think that may be the gist of this spokesperson's comment, eh....suits, b'ah, 'idea guys', cheez...you can practically see the sweat on someone's brow. While true; it may be extremely difficult to hit mega- 'franchise' status, there are exceptions to any 'rule of thumb'.
Never let anyone like that control your destiny...
Rex
#32
if you want to do it 'EA way', you will not be able to compete, as it would then cost you 15 million to do a 4 million dollar project.. and I honestly cannot afford to waste that kind of money.
seriously though, the end users will be the deciding factor. If the purchasers of products continue to purchase what the big guys are shoveling, you will get more of the same although it will look better (and cost more).
I suspect that there are more people reading this who purchased the extremely uninspired Halo2 (my opinion) or the forgettable doom III than ThinkTanks. We all decide who we give our money to.. and these decisions lead to where we are now and where we are going.
It all starts with the individual, and what they value, and where they decide to spend their $50 (soon to be $60)
05/18/2005 (9:23 pm)
Words of wisdom from EA, whose producers are SSOOO skilled that they use project management practices that violate very basic concepts of project management that one learns in business 101..if you want to do it 'EA way', you will not be able to compete, as it would then cost you 15 million to do a 4 million dollar project.. and I honestly cannot afford to waste that kind of money.
seriously though, the end users will be the deciding factor. If the purchasers of products continue to purchase what the big guys are shoveling, you will get more of the same although it will look better (and cost more).
I suspect that there are more people reading this who purchased the extremely uninspired Halo2 (my opinion) or the forgettable doom III than ThinkTanks. We all decide who we give our money to.. and these decisions lead to where we are now and where we are going.
It all starts with the individual, and what they value, and where they decide to spend their $50 (soon to be $60)
#33
05/18/2005 (9:27 pm)
Not just Blair Witch project, I also hear the movie saw was created with 20,000$ budget. Or maybe it was the 1st one? Either way.
#34
Rough. Joe you make me feel bad about choosing Halo 2 over Think Tanks. I pesonally like games with plot and purpose no matter how shallow. Maybe indie games don't do as well as they could because most of them are only online, meaning in order for them to be fun you need people to play with. Well when you have a product with no marketing it's hard to get those people, and with no people, it's hard to get people that wanna play with people. It's like your main product is....people. Maybe indie's should take the time to build a story mode as well, to attract lol people. Even if it's just 4 or 5 levels and maybe a promise/plan to add a few more later. If you want to attract some of the the main stream crowd and be taken more seriously then you have to give a little more content than Deathmatch. Give me an adventure. Or at least something I can play by myself with different objectives to keep things fresh. Just my little opinion.
Oh also I wanted to give my congrats to you Joe for the whole Xbox Live thing. I'll be sure to check it out when it drops.
-Ajari-
05/19/2005 (12:41 pm)
Quote:I suspect that there are more people reading this who purchased the extremely uninspired Halo2 (my opinion) or the forgettable doom III than ThinkTanks.
Rough. Joe you make me feel bad about choosing Halo 2 over Think Tanks. I pesonally like games with plot and purpose no matter how shallow. Maybe indie games don't do as well as they could because most of them are only online, meaning in order for them to be fun you need people to play with. Well when you have a product with no marketing it's hard to get those people, and with no people, it's hard to get people that wanna play with people. It's like your main product is....people. Maybe indie's should take the time to build a story mode as well, to attract lol people. Even if it's just 4 or 5 levels and maybe a promise/plan to add a few more later. If you want to attract some of the the main stream crowd and be taken more seriously then you have to give a little more content than Deathmatch. Give me an adventure. Or at least something I can play by myself with different objectives to keep things fresh. Just my little opinion.
Oh also I wanted to give my congrats to you Joe for the whole Xbox Live thing. I'll be sure to check it out when it drops.
-Ajari-
#35
franchise into a smouldering ruin of nerfs and broken promises.. ah hem. lol
Indies will get it down with "tele commuting" virtual project companies letting people across
the earth do game developement in a co-op environment.
05/19/2005 (12:44 pm)
These are the same EA that didn't listen to it's customer and burned Earth and Beyond from afranchise into a smouldering ruin of nerfs and broken promises.. ah hem. lol
Indies will get it down with "tele commuting" virtual project companies letting people across
the earth do game developement in a co-op environment.
#36
Actually, that would be the entire point... Jeff Brown is shaking in his boots because he knows that an indie game company can come along and steal his precious market segment. Why do you think Microsoft bought Bungie? Not because they wanted Halo for XBox (ok, so maybe they did) but they didn't want it showing up on Macs and then PCs... Jeff is only showing his fear here. Like MS and Linux. Discredit the competition and they won't give you problems. Net thing you know, we'll have EA funding some company to make claims that I stole their code and put it into my project.
EA can suck rocks. dRacer is so gonna blow away anything they've done, IMPO.
- Brett
05/19/2005 (12:54 pm)
Quote:
Indie game studios are no more a threat to outfits like EA than indie film studios are a threat to big box office Hollywood, so there is no need to waste energy on scheming to deflate them.
Actually, that would be the entire point... Jeff Brown is shaking in his boots because he knows that an indie game company can come along and steal his precious market segment. Why do you think Microsoft bought Bungie? Not because they wanted Halo for XBox (ok, so maybe they did) but they didn't want it showing up on Macs and then PCs... Jeff is only showing his fear here. Like MS and Linux. Discredit the competition and they won't give you problems. Net thing you know, we'll have EA funding some company to make claims that I stole their code and put it into my project.
EA can suck rocks. dRacer is so gonna blow away anything they've done, IMPO.
- Brett
#37
The more hollywood games get, the more they seem to try and stick to games-as-storytelling rather than games-as-activity. That's not a value judgement, I love a good story. My girlfriend had a great time playing Primal and I had a pretty good time just watching. Sure it wasn't Shakespeare, but it had it's moments.
But once again, it's easier to tell a so-so story if you have high enough production values. Heck, look at Half-Life 2. That story was nothing to write home about, but it's art direction was so top notch that nobody really noticed.
This is another reason why I wish that Sony would open the PSP. An engine like Torque on the PSP would open up a wider demographic to indie developers. But avenues like XBox Live is another serious boon in the same vein.
05/19/2005 (1:13 pm)
I think the story thing is a good point. The Blair Witch Project is a good analogy again. It's hard to compete with big studio special effects and cinematography when all you have is a handycam (not making allusions here).The more hollywood games get, the more they seem to try and stick to games-as-storytelling rather than games-as-activity. That's not a value judgement, I love a good story. My girlfriend had a great time playing Primal and I had a pretty good time just watching. Sure it wasn't Shakespeare, but it had it's moments.
But once again, it's easier to tell a so-so story if you have high enough production values. Heck, look at Half-Life 2. That story was nothing to write home about, but it's art direction was so top notch that nobody really noticed.
This is another reason why I wish that Sony would open the PSP. An engine like Torque on the PSP would open up a wider demographic to indie developers. But avenues like XBox Live is another serious boon in the same vein.
#38
I changed, because a lot of the latest 'professional' stuff has been more about graphics and selling engines than games with any depth, longevity or challenge and fun.
Bug ridden and released before they were tested and in some cases unfinished they are still bought by the unsuspecting public. The public however are beginning to wisen (SP) up.
So many AAA games released in the last year alone have been dissapointments, sometimes with big chunks missing... But... They all (for the most part) had great graphics :).
Yet here I am playing matrixgames and Shrapnel games, with a side order of Starcraft (an oldie but goodie)
Soo..
Can we compete in the Graphics and 'Shiny Tings' department... ? Probably not .. (yet)
Can we compete in the Gameplay department...? I would say we can and indeed DO excel at that.
There will always be a market for Indie games, the industry will never make me rich and probably only one in one thousand of us will strike it rich :)
Personally I dont compete with EA, I just write the games and programs I want to write and if I can make a few pounds to fund the developement then all the better :)
Cheers
Garion
05/19/2005 (2:00 pm)
Personally, I have bought more Indie, Niche type games over the last year than Blockbuster, whizzbang shiny tings games from mainstream publishers.I changed, because a lot of the latest 'professional' stuff has been more about graphics and selling engines than games with any depth, longevity or challenge and fun.
Bug ridden and released before they were tested and in some cases unfinished they are still bought by the unsuspecting public. The public however are beginning to wisen (SP) up.
So many AAA games released in the last year alone have been dissapointments, sometimes with big chunks missing... But... They all (for the most part) had great graphics :).
Yet here I am playing matrixgames and Shrapnel games, with a side order of Starcraft (an oldie but goodie)
Soo..
Can we compete in the Graphics and 'Shiny Tings' department... ? Probably not .. (yet)
Can we compete in the Gameplay department...? I would say we can and indeed DO excel at that.
There will always be a market for Indie games, the industry will never make me rich and probably only one in one thousand of us will strike it rich :)
Personally I dont compete with EA, I just write the games and programs I want to write and if I can make a few pounds to fund the developement then all the better :)
Cheers
Garion
#39
Think about it, if you've spent a few million developing a AAA title, only to find yourself competing in a sea of "like" titles that, while they may not look as good, provide similar game-play aspects and generally cost less, you'd be worried too.
The strength of the independent movement isn't that any one of us is going to topple a company like EA, it's that as individuals we require so much less revenue to operate, which means that many of us can afford to operate, which ultimately means more competition.
In other words, one indy doesn't pose any threat to a "major" studio, but ALL of us, well... that's a different story now isn't it.
05/19/2005 (2:31 pm)
IMO the threat of independent development studios isn't that they'll begin producing meg-hit blockbuster titles as much as it is that they crowd the market place and increase the competition for consumer dollars.Think about it, if you've spent a few million developing a AAA title, only to find yourself competing in a sea of "like" titles that, while they may not look as good, provide similar game-play aspects and generally cost less, you'd be worried too.
The strength of the independent movement isn't that any one of us is going to topple a company like EA, it's that as individuals we require so much less revenue to operate, which means that many of us can afford to operate, which ultimately means more competition.
In other words, one indy doesn't pose any threat to a "major" studio, but ALL of us, well... that's a different story now isn't it.
#40
05/19/2005 (3:00 pm)
All Empires topple at some point. This guy's afraid because he's looking at a steep drop. 
Torque Owner Joshua "RegularX" Birk
EA plans to trample by smothering it's competition in production costs. They WANT games to cost a $15 million for hair value, because even middle sized studios will have to struggle to keep up.
So what do you do with that information? First, acknolwedge it exists. Realize that in six to nine months there are going to be titles on the shelves with graphics unlike anything anyone has seen and probably far beyond what anyone doing garage work can dream to match. Second, figure out what benefits the game gets from having these kinds of graphics and realize that in the eyes of a consumer, that your product probably won't match that. Third, find out what else you can offer so that the consumer just won't care and buy your product anyway.
But also, EA wants to control the mic. They want to be able to tell gamers what they should be expecting for the coming year. Somehow the smaller shops have to find channels to broadcast their message as well. Mods have managed to capture attention and news, a lot of times more than independants can. That field has to be levelled somewhat.