Lessons from IGC

I didn't know what to expect from IGC. To be honest, I may not have even gone if not for the opportunity to show off my game Robot Battle (shameless plug). Now that its over, I'm really glad I went. The conference was both fun and enlightening. Since many people couldn't make it to Eugene, I thought I'd share a few of my own thoughts...


1. There are a lot of like-minded, enthusiastic, friendly, and fun people in this community. It may sound corny, but in some ways the IGC felt like a huge extended family gathering (albeit a rather odd family, with no female members). After the IGC, I'm convinced that whether you are putting a team together or looking to join a team, there are good people out there. I also realized that there is no substitute for talking with people directly. If you can't meet with potential contractors, employees, or employers face-to-face, then at least talk to them on the telephone.


2. Before attending the IGC, I had mistakenly assumed that almost all "indy" groups were either hobbyists, like myself, or eager young people. What I found at the conference is that at least some indy teams are well run small businesses. These teams formally interview employees and contractors, have legal agreements, status meetings, milestones, sales and cost estimates, etc. These teams are making games with very high production values.

There is still room for the hobbyist, but in my opinion their games will be outclasses by well run indy businesses. If you are a hobbyist, as I am now, that should not be earth shattering news since game development is not your primary source of income. If on the other hand, you plan to make a living selling games or would like your hobby to become something more, you should get organized. If you do not have the experience or desire to run a business, you might consider starting out working with someone else who does or keeping it a hobby.


3. Randy Dersham (formerly of Electronic Arts) gave a presentation about mainstream publishers. His presentation could be summed up by saying that large publishers are looking to reduce risks. An important way they reduce risk is by sticking with what he called "proven successful" games and developers (he must have said "proven successful" 10 times). In other words, publishers look for games or talented developers that have sold well in the past and then do it again. Randy also said most large publishers are attempted to sell larger quantities of fewer titles. They are ditching games that can not sell hundreds of thousands of copies.

His presentation really made it clear that there is a growing opportunity for smaller developers. Particularly those developers willing to take risks on games with novel (unproven) game play or games that target niche markets. The more EA focuses on proven formula games with better graphics, the more opportunities there are for small developers to snag players who want something different. Likewise, the more large publishers ignore small markets, the more markets open up for us to fill. I think many indies realize these points intuitively, but it was good to get confirmation from someone who knows how EA works.


4. If Jeff and crew had decided to sell indy cheese, Jay Moore could probably still get people excited about it and line up a bunch of sponsors for their first ICC :)


-Brad