It was the first one. I’m sure they want subsequent events to showcase the best and most unique aspects of indie talent…I think it will take a few more events before they get there.
Yeah I'm curious if the sensibility will develop, or solidify. It'll be interesting to see. As I said up top, I'm broadly supportive of stuff like this for indie developers, even the games in this edition were a bit homogenous. It would have been easier to just say it was great, but I decided to give my honest take.
@@GamingInTheWild Your opinion is absolutely valid and respectable. I can see this first event being use to give them feedback and gauge interest. A sort of barometer. It may be a bit unrealistic to expect a jaw dropping, well polished and organized event with the latest and greatest indie announcements for their first show. Hopefully the interest in the first showcase proves to be worthy of a better show next time around with more developers participating. I guess we will see.
What I really want to see from indie showcases is finding and highlighting games that don't have momentum yet. Not that I want the bigger names to be ignored, but I don't think they'll need much help.
Alright first I would like to say I think all these criticisms are extremely valid however I do think I understand the reason as to why the iii marketed these types of games mainly for guaranteed success and I assume they wanted to come in with a bang though I do think after a few more showcases roll out I think we will get a much more a varied and unique lineup of games. One point however that I think is hurting this showcase in particular was the hype for silksong a lot of the more interesting and different games that weren't sequels or weren't from well established studios got absolutely ignored in my opinion.
Personally I hadn't actually heard about the iii Initiative until it was over and advertised on Steam. I agree that they're perhaps playing it quite safe which seems somewhat counterintuitive but maybe it's their way of getting the word out? Sequels are certainly going to get fans excited and then people like myself who weren't aware of the event at first may now be anticipating their next moves. I could be wrong though lol. Interesting topic to discuss regardless. Great video, anyway, you definitely showed some interesting looking games I'd missed.
Putting this out there; I was intrigued by the idea and disgusted by the name, why "iii"... seems like a parody of something they don't want to be. It feels like they have gotten all this money(well deserved) and don't want to be associated with indie and then came up with the brilliant idea of, "since we cant be AAA, and we don't want to be indies, lets be iii". Its basically separating themselves from their roots and notice how its mainly big publishers like you mentioned, and very few up and coming indies, its basic segmentation. Nintendo indie direct feels more indie and creative than this. All this ranting wont stop them, i hope this next event gets better
I had a similar take, I was quite intrigued with the concept of the event. ...In fact just the other day I had made a suggestion in the Steam idea discussions about brainstorming ways to help indies with poor sales but good games. I concluded an event might be nice. And suddenly here comes iii initiative! Of course what we got seems more about making buzz for some bigger indies, so that was a little disappointing... (presented by The Triple-i Intiative and... Evil Empire??) Still, maybe it'll gather a bit of attention of curious non-indie gamers. Might be up to fellows like yourself to pick up the slack to highlight indies ;D
“Land grab”… great way to put it. Currently it’s a bunch of successful developers grouping together to elevate their products while still retaining the ‘indie’ tag for marketing credibility. I don’t fault them for doing it, business ain’t easy, it but it’s disingenuous to prop themselves up knowing from experience how difficult indie development really is. If they are not putting resources into supporting the unknowns then these devs/publishers aren’t much different to the AAA companies they want to differentiate themselves from, which will undoubtedly show in the quality of their products as time goes on.
Pony Island 2: Panda Circus. I was using that as a contrast - a trailer that really did make me go "what the hell is that, and when can I play it?" It opened the Game Awards last year, and is from the maker of Inscryption.
I 100% agree and I feel it will only get worse. They even coined a perfect name for it. For the last few years I've really been seeing the signs of stagnation in the top players of the "indie" space. We are not to the point where it is harmful yet. The many sequels and safe iterrating on proven ideas might be welcomed by fans now but it absolutely will be harmful in the long run. Good thing games are so easily distributed nowadays that we would never lose access to trully innovative games from creative authors.
At the moment I’m mostly intrested in indie games and “Nintendo”exclusive games.These are games that I enjoy and make me feel like a kid on a Saturday watching cartoons and playing videogames.The last triple A games I loved over the past years where “Ratchet & Clank rift apart”/“Psychonauts 2”/“It takes two”/“Hifi rush”/“Mario Rabbids kingdom battle” and “Spyro”remake trilogy”.For the future I would love to see a sequal to “Sly raccoon’s thieves in time”and “Jak & Daxter’s lost frontier”.Even cancelled games like “Beyond Good & Evil 2”and “Jazz Jackrabbit 3D”would be awesome if the original developers picked it up again or pass it to indie developers to make it happen with there creativity it could even be fresh and more fun experience.
was expecting alot of new games unfortunately most of the games shown we have already seen so for a first showcase wasn't hooked by the name saying triple iii was expecting more
I truly find the concept and aesthetic approach of the Triple-I Initiative to be wonderful. With the void left behind by the absence of E3, or rather the fractured pieces left behind by the bigger companies pulling out of E3 and doing their own showcases (Playstation’s State of Play, Nintendo’s Directs, etc), it makes sense for independent creators to band together and lift each other up. I ultimately disagree with your take. I like indie developers because they put their heart and soul into their games (such as: Shovel Knight, Cult of the Lamb, Hades, Enter the Gungeon, and Stardew Valley) compared to the soulless Triple-A corporations which don’t listen to their fanbase and are typically riddled with micro-transactions. I further disagree with the implication that sequels, and to an extent DLC, are somehow devoid of creativity and innovation. This is the first attempt and there’s plenty of room for The Triple-I Initiative to grow. How much behind-the-scenes of the initiative do we actually know? What is the purpose of a gaming showcase? Arguably, to show the market the various video games that are being worked on.
Hey! I really appreciate a comment like this :) you make good points and don't come after me personally once, so thanks for that. Folks in the comments really do default quickly to ad hominem. I also prefer indie games as they do more interesting things, traditionally, or at least sometimes and to some degree. I guess what I don't want to see is an indie scene that mimics the AAA model of falling into a few popular genres, and flogging old IP, like say, Prince of Persia and Castlevania and Contra. The games that make the indie scene great, to me, are things that innovate and try new things - Inscryption, Immortality, Kentucky Route Zero. There was nothing like that here. Seeing a bunch of post-Hades dungeon crawlers and so forth made me feel bummed out, because in my opinion, it's the sign of an indie game scene - or at least, this collective - that's veering to the middle of the road. There are reasons that might be the case. But for me, the really original, sparky stuff that lights me up is... elsewhere? And as I said in the video, ironically, more on show in other more mainstream showcases.
@@GamingInTheWild You haven't been the only TH-camr to preface their reply thanking me for not personally insulting them and that's sad to hear that it seems to happen frequently. I think that's a fair and valid opinion, however this singular showcase (of ~35 games) cannot accurately be used to describe the indie game scene for several reasons. The biggest reason, that I can think of at this moment, is that the indie scene encompasses individuals and small game studios. Some game developers get mislabeled as "indie" when they are more like a Double-A developer. Often you just have to search for something that suits what you want to play. For example, I'm excited for the release of Alterium Shift and Dragonyhym. Both are rpg-games, but are very aesthetically different. Alterium Shift is like an updated retro jrpg, while Dragonyhm is coming out for the game boy in 2024. Indie games that are made in a "crowded genre" are forced to innovate to stand out. There's plenty of metroidvanias, however there's also plenty that do things differently from gameplay to exploration to aesthetics. Indie developers that are creating fan-games for pre-existing franchises, like Pokemon/Metroid/Sonic/Earthbound, often create really interesting games. Taking care of the franchise better than the company pumping out the 30th installment.
I think I see mostly criticism of this innovative (on similar lines). Although it seems to be not "games in crowed genres" but rather remakes of games which have *started* these new genres (roguevanias, survivors-likes and spirelikes, all called "roguelikes" and "indie" for some silly reason).
There's a conversation to be had around that for sure, but it's largely academic I think? Like Bithell Games is indie but made licensed games in Tron and John Wick Hex... but I think Rogue is actually Ubisoft published... but then, AAA publishers do pick up indie games! But then if it's always intended to be sold to a AAA publisher, was it ever indie? Who knows honestly, you can use legal definitions, but I tend to go on vibes. Like Journey: a Sony-funded game, with irresistibly indie project vibes. Lost In Random: definitely indie, but published by EA Originals 🤷♂️
Were people expecting Silksong? That game has its pick of prime time spots in any showcase going, I wasn't expecting it here. I must have missed the bait!
@@GamingInTheWild yeah, I didn’t either until the message at the start popped up that said: „What was that highly anticipated metroidvania with an insect again? It look cool.“ Or something like that
I hate that I'm frequently expressing negative views, but there's so much to critique in the gaming space these days, it's hard not to call a spade a spade when appropriate. I was wary of the idea of the iii initiative when it was first announced and was left feeling worse still about it. At this point AAA is a slur, so why associate your own work with it? It's entirely lacking in self-awareness even if it is offered in a tongue-in-cheek manner. I understand why the biggest indies want a larger platform, it's the only way for them to grow as a brand, but I don't think doubling down on the most mainstream parts of the indie space is the way to do that (or maybe it is and I just don't like it). It's also frustrating that the Prince of Persia game by Evil Empire is published by Ubisoft (I get that they own the IP, but that also undermines the indie angle entirely, it shouldn't have been included). And lastly, I'm simply done with *punk genre games, done with *vania game, done with sequels, and done with this kind of corporate direction in gaming. This is just driving a deeper wedge between the haves and the have nots and I'm saddened that people mostly seem fine with it. When people use the argument that they just want to play the games they want to play and not think about the politics, that this indicates that attitude has trickled down into the indie space, it's only a matter of time before there's a iii subscription service that ultimately gets gobbled up by Microsoft (or whoever). I found the whole thing to be shameful.
Yeah, for something with so much indie goodwill in the tank, it's odd that it feels a bit off. I am the target audience for this, absolutely. But there was a homogeneity to the selection on show here. I do wonder if the economic times and tightening of funding is making studios more conservative in their project picks? There was a great episode of the @sifterhq Lightmap show recently in which a studio head was very frank about how these factors have changed their output.
@@GamingInTheWild I listened to the Solium Infernum episode. I have a difficult time reconciling Trent saying League of Geeks had no "fat" in their 70-person studio in an environment where it was clear to anyone paying attention that as interest rates returned to more historically average levels VC funding was going to dry up. And while I understand that game developers are not finance people, you can't be so irresponsible with money that you wouldn't reflect on the potential problem with grounding your whole business model on _needing_ an endless flow of outside money coming in to stay afloat. But to then go on and suggest "people in high places are the ones making really foolish decisions" when much of the blame falls clearly on your shoulders for living beyond your means, is borderline delusional. I wish I could be more sympathetic, but there seems to be a generation of game devs that think they are _entitled_ to do whatever they want with no fiscal restraints. The reality is simple, for however large the gaming industry is now, (primarily due to the terrible mobile market) there are too many games and too many game developers and too few interesting/creative ideas to profitably mine. If you can't earn enough money from your current project to make your next project you probably need to reassess your finances and reconsider how/whether you should even be making that project (before you need to lay off 45% of your staff). I found the overall attitude presented in the interview very frustrating, doubly so as I quite liked Solium Infernum. It just made me feel like I lit my $40 purchase price on fire.
That's quite a rant :') I agree with you than developers may have gotten a little inured to having business-saving cash injections to fund development. But I think your take there is a little harsh. Did you ever watch the epic Double Fine Psychodyssey series? That too showed how difficult it is to thread the needle of having enough good people on payroll to make an ambitious game at all, and the financial gymnastics it takes takes to make it happen in the funding timeframe. I appreciate the idea that you scope games down and down and down to fit the money you have, but I also respect that developers' creative and business ambitions might outstrip a hardcore/unshakeable dedication to living-within-your-means above all else. Ultimately, I too feel there is an over-reliance on the funding tap staying turned on above working out a business model that floats. I've witnessed it first hand, and we see the ramifications in these layoffs across the industry. But I don't necessarily judge people as harshly from playing the situation as it lays, either. It's hard to imagine how we might react to the same pressures, economic factors, ticking-clock timelines for success, and so forth.
@@GamingInTheWild Sorry for that! I didn't set out to be so harsh but as I started to respond I realized that I was quite annoyed. What frustrates me is that there are perfect examples of how to go about development with sound and ethical methods that people seem to refuse to acknowledge. You can make ambitious games without seeking millions of dollars from outside investors. Lately there have been several indie studios that have released videos about how they achieved what they did and the comment sections of those videos are absolutely infuriating. (definitely a contributing factor in my harshness) I guess the point I'm trying to make is that (outside of luck/catching the zeitgeist) you work up to ambitious projects rather than come out the gates expecting people to fund them. Rembrandt didn't exit art school and expect to paint _The Night Watch._ Likewise, Supergiant would have been in trouble had they expected to make Hades (as it exists now) as their first (or second or third) game. You learn and grow and prove that you're capable of achieving what you set out to do over time. As you acknowledge, the attitude that has pervaded development over the last decade is what has led to massive layoffs and like the 2008 financial meltdown, _people_ are responsible for that whether they're held accountable or not (by hiding behind systemic/structural failings). While it may not be "criminal" to take advantage of a corrupt situation, in the end it's still corruption and participation _is_ a personal choice. (look at the fraud statistics for covid-related government stimulus, it's staggering) As for the Psychodyssey series, I've always intended to get to it but haven't yet invested the time. It's not a series I hold as dear as some but your mention of it here might tip the scales to finally tackling its enormous runtime.
@@the_elder_gamer it's so good! I can't praise it enough. Probably the single most insightful look at game development I've ever seen. And it also functions as a kind of office drama in a strange way, too.
Hello! I disagree that the title card is misleading. This video is about what iii says about the future of indie games - and especially, that they seem to be becoming more conservative, leaning on existing IP and working in an ever-narrower selection of genres-much like AAA. So the title card is right on the money IMO!
It was the first one. I’m sure they want subsequent events to showcase the best and most unique aspects of indie talent…I think it will take a few more events before they get there.
Yeah I'm curious if the sensibility will develop, or solidify. It'll be interesting to see. As I said up top, I'm broadly supportive of stuff like this for indie developers, even the games in this edition were a bit homogenous.
It would have been easier to just say it was great, but I decided to give my honest take.
@@GamingInTheWild Your opinion is absolutely valid and respectable. I can see this first event being use to give them feedback and gauge interest. A sort of barometer. It may be a bit unrealistic to expect a jaw dropping, well polished and organized event with the latest and greatest indie announcements for their first show. Hopefully the interest in the first showcase proves to be worthy of a better show next time around with more developers participating. I guess we will see.
What I really want to see from indie showcases is finding and highlighting games that don't have momentum yet. Not that I want the bigger names to be ignored, but I don't think they'll need much help.
Yeah. I think Day of the Devs does it best at the moment.
Alright first I would like to say I think all these criticisms are extremely valid however I do think I understand the reason as to why the iii marketed these types of games mainly for guaranteed success and I assume they wanted to come in with a bang though I do think after a few more showcases roll out I think we will get a much more a varied and unique lineup of games. One point however that I think is hurting this showcase in particular was the hype for silksong a lot of the more interesting and different games that weren't sequels or weren't from well established studios got absolutely ignored in my opinion.
Personally I hadn't actually heard about the iii Initiative until it was over and advertised on Steam. I agree that they're perhaps playing it quite safe which seems somewhat counterintuitive but maybe it's their way of getting the word out? Sequels are certainly going to get fans excited and then people like myself who weren't aware of the event at first may now be anticipating their next moves. I could be wrong though lol. Interesting topic to discuss regardless. Great video, anyway, you definitely showed some interesting looking games I'd missed.
Putting this out there; I was intrigued by the idea and disgusted by the name, why "iii"... seems like a parody of something they don't want to be.
It feels like they have gotten all this money(well deserved) and don't want to be associated with indie and then came up with the brilliant idea of, "since we cant be AAA, and we don't want to be indies, lets be iii". Its basically separating themselves from their roots and notice how its mainly big publishers like you mentioned, and very few up and coming indies, its basic segmentation. Nintendo indie direct feels more indie and creative than this.
All this ranting wont stop them, i hope this next event gets better
I had a similar take, I was quite intrigued with the concept of the event. ...In fact just the other day I had made a suggestion in the Steam idea discussions about brainstorming ways to help indies with poor sales but good games. I concluded an event might be nice. And suddenly here comes iii initiative! Of course what we got seems more about making buzz for some bigger indies, so that was a little disappointing... (presented by The Triple-i Intiative and... Evil Empire??) Still, maybe it'll gather a bit of attention of curious non-indie gamers.
Might be up to fellows like yourself to pick up the slack to highlight indies ;D
Haha I'll keep doing my best!
“Land grab”… great way to put it. Currently it’s a bunch of successful developers grouping together to elevate their products while still retaining the ‘indie’ tag for marketing credibility.
I don’t fault them for doing it, business ain’t easy, it but it’s disingenuous to prop themselves up knowing from
experience how difficult indie development really is.
If they are not putting resources into supporting the unknowns then these devs/publishers aren’t much different to the AAA companies they want to differentiate themselves from, which will undoubtedly show in the quality of their products as time goes on.
What's the game @ 5:20?
Pony Island 2: Panda Circus. I was using that as a contrast - a trailer that really did make me go "what the hell is that, and when can I play it?" It opened the Game Awards last year, and is from the maker of Inscryption.
@@GamingInTheWild Thanks!
I 100% agree and I feel it will only get worse. They even coined a perfect name for it. For the last few years I've really been seeing the signs of stagnation in the top players of the "indie" space. We are not to the point where it is harmful yet. The many sequels and safe iterrating on proven ideas might be welcomed by fans now but it absolutely will be harmful in the long run.
Good thing games are so easily distributed nowadays that we would never lose access to trully innovative games from creative authors.
At the moment I’m mostly intrested in indie games and “Nintendo”exclusive games.These are games that I enjoy and make me feel like a kid on a Saturday watching cartoons and playing videogames.The last triple A games I loved over the past years where “Ratchet & Clank rift apart”/“Psychonauts 2”/“It takes two”/“Hifi rush”/“Mario Rabbids kingdom battle” and “Spyro”remake trilogy”.For the future I would love to see a sequal to “Sly raccoon’s thieves in time”and “Jak & Daxter’s lost frontier”.Even cancelled games like “Beyond Good & Evil 2”and “Jazz Jackrabbit 3D”would be awesome if the original developers picked it up again or pass it to indie developers to make it happen with there creativity it could even be fresh and more fun experience.
Check out indie game Pseudoregalia for a fresh take on 3D platforming! :)
@@GamingInTheWild I will,thank you for sharing ☺️I’ll check it out on steam.
was expecting alot of new games unfortunately most of the games shown we have already seen so for a first showcase wasn't hooked by the name saying triple iii was expecting more
they always said it would be demo's, sales world premiers- this showcase was fire
I truly find the concept and aesthetic approach of the Triple-I Initiative to be wonderful. With the void left behind by the absence of E3, or rather the fractured pieces left behind by the bigger companies pulling out of E3 and doing their own showcases (Playstation’s State of Play, Nintendo’s Directs, etc), it makes sense for independent creators to band together and lift each other up. I ultimately disagree with your take. I like indie developers because they put their heart and soul into their games (such as: Shovel Knight, Cult of the Lamb, Hades, Enter the Gungeon, and Stardew Valley) compared to the soulless Triple-A corporations which don’t listen to their fanbase and are typically riddled with micro-transactions. I further disagree with the implication that sequels, and to an extent DLC, are somehow devoid of creativity and innovation. This is the first attempt and there’s plenty of room for The Triple-I Initiative to grow. How much behind-the-scenes of the initiative do we actually know? What is the purpose of a gaming showcase? Arguably, to show the market the various video games that are being worked on.
Hey! I really appreciate a comment like this :) you make good points and don't come after me personally once, so thanks for that. Folks in the comments really do default quickly to ad hominem.
I also prefer indie games as they do more interesting things, traditionally, or at least sometimes and to some degree. I guess what I don't want to see is an indie scene that mimics the AAA model of falling into a few popular genres, and flogging old IP, like say, Prince of Persia and Castlevania and Contra.
The games that make the indie scene great, to me, are things that innovate and try new things - Inscryption, Immortality, Kentucky Route Zero. There was nothing like that here. Seeing a bunch of post-Hades dungeon crawlers and so forth made me feel bummed out, because in my opinion, it's the sign of an indie game scene - or at least, this collective - that's veering to the middle of the road.
There are reasons that might be the case. But for me, the really original, sparky stuff that lights me up is... elsewhere? And as I said in the video, ironically, more on show in other more mainstream showcases.
@@GamingInTheWild
You haven't been the only TH-camr to preface their reply thanking me for not personally insulting them and that's sad to hear that it seems to happen frequently.
I think that's a fair and valid opinion, however this singular showcase (of ~35 games) cannot accurately be used to describe the indie game scene for several reasons. The biggest reason, that I can think of at this moment, is that the indie scene encompasses individuals and small game studios. Some game developers get mislabeled as "indie" when they are more like a Double-A developer. Often you just have to search for something that suits what you want to play. For example, I'm excited for the release of Alterium Shift and Dragonyhym. Both are rpg-games, but are very aesthetically different. Alterium Shift is like an updated retro jrpg, while Dragonyhm is coming out for the game boy in 2024.
Indie games that are made in a "crowded genre" are forced to innovate to stand out. There's plenty of metroidvanias, however there's also plenty that do things differently from gameplay to exploration to aesthetics.
Indie developers that are creating fan-games for pre-existing franchises, like Pokemon/Metroid/Sonic/Earthbound, often create really interesting games. Taking care of the franchise better than the company pumping out the 30th installment.
Great analysis.
Thank you for explaining why I felt somewhat disappointed by this showcase. I did like the format though and I hope they keep it going.
Same here. I'm all for the concept in theory!
I think I see mostly criticism of this innovative (on similar lines).
Although it seems to be not "games in crowed genres" but rather remakes of games which have *started* these new genres (roguevanias, survivors-likes and spirelikes, all called "roguelikes" and "indie" for some silly reason).
Yeah, a lot of people are trying to make the next Hades while Supergiant are making the literal next Hades!
Also how is Prince of Persia, a game published by Ubisoft! in any way Indie?
There's a conversation to be had around that for sure, but it's largely academic I think? Like Bithell Games is indie but made licensed games in Tron and John Wick Hex... but I think Rogue is actually Ubisoft published... but then, AAA publishers do pick up indie games! But then if it's always intended to be sold to a AAA publisher, was it ever indie? Who knows honestly, you can use legal definitions, but I tend to go on vibes. Like Journey: a Sony-funded game, with irresistibly indie project vibes. Lost In Random: definitely indie, but published by EA Originals 🤷♂️
No silksong :(
We got baited
Were people expecting Silksong? That game has its pick of prime time spots in any showcase going, I wasn't expecting it here. I must have missed the bait!
@@GamingInTheWild yeah, I didn’t either until the message at the start popped up that said: „What was that highly anticipated metroidvania with an insect again? It look cool.“
Or something like that
Ah I missed that! Sounds like harmless goofing around but Silksong fans are on a short fuse for such things these days 😊
@@GamingInTheWildyeah, we are desperate
Keep watching the skies! I got it in Fantasy Critic this year, I believe!
I hate that I'm frequently expressing negative views, but there's so much to critique in the gaming space these days, it's hard not to call a spade a spade when appropriate.
I was wary of the idea of the iii initiative when it was first announced and was left feeling worse still about it. At this point AAA is a slur, so why associate your own work with it? It's entirely lacking in self-awareness even if it is offered in a tongue-in-cheek manner. I understand why the biggest indies want a larger platform, it's the only way for them to grow as a brand, but I don't think doubling down on the most mainstream parts of the indie space is the way to do that (or maybe it is and I just don't like it). It's also frustrating that the Prince of Persia game by Evil Empire is published by Ubisoft (I get that they own the IP, but that also undermines the indie angle entirely, it shouldn't have been included). And lastly, I'm simply done with *punk genre games, done with *vania game, done with sequels, and done with this kind of corporate direction in gaming. This is just driving a deeper wedge between the haves and the have nots and I'm saddened that people mostly seem fine with it. When people use the argument that they just want to play the games they want to play and not think about the politics, that this indicates that attitude has trickled down into the indie space, it's only a matter of time before there's a iii subscription service that ultimately gets gobbled up by Microsoft (or whoever). I found the whole thing to be shameful.
Yeah, for something with so much indie goodwill in the tank, it's odd that it feels a bit off. I am the target audience for this, absolutely. But there was a homogeneity to the selection on show here. I do wonder if the economic times and tightening of funding is making studios more conservative in their project picks? There was a great episode of the @sifterhq Lightmap show recently in which a studio head was very frank about how these factors have changed their output.
@@GamingInTheWild I listened to the Solium Infernum episode. I have a difficult time reconciling Trent saying League of Geeks had no "fat" in their 70-person studio in an environment where it was clear to anyone paying attention that as interest rates returned to more historically average levels VC funding was going to dry up. And while I understand that game developers are not finance people, you can't be so irresponsible with money that you wouldn't reflect on the potential problem with grounding your whole business model on _needing_ an endless flow of outside money coming in to stay afloat. But to then go on and suggest "people in high places are the ones making really foolish decisions" when much of the blame falls clearly on your shoulders for living beyond your means, is borderline delusional. I wish I could be more sympathetic, but there seems to be a generation of game devs that think they are _entitled_ to do whatever they want with no fiscal restraints. The reality is simple, for however large the gaming industry is now, (primarily due to the terrible mobile market) there are too many games and too many game developers and too few interesting/creative ideas to profitably mine. If you can't earn enough money from your current project to make your next project you probably need to reassess your finances and reconsider how/whether you should even be making that project (before you need to lay off 45% of your staff). I found the overall attitude presented in the interview very frustrating, doubly so as I quite liked Solium Infernum. It just made me feel like I lit my $40 purchase price on fire.
That's quite a rant :') I agree with you than developers may have gotten a little inured to having business-saving cash injections to fund development. But I think your take there is a little harsh. Did you ever watch the epic Double Fine Psychodyssey series? That too showed how difficult it is to thread the needle of having enough good people on payroll to make an ambitious game at all, and the financial gymnastics it takes takes to make it happen in the funding timeframe.
I appreciate the idea that you scope games down and down and down to fit the money you have, but I also respect that developers' creative and business ambitions might outstrip a hardcore/unshakeable dedication to living-within-your-means above all else.
Ultimately, I too feel there is an over-reliance on the funding tap staying turned on above working out a business model that floats. I've witnessed it first hand, and we see the ramifications in these layoffs across the industry.
But I don't necessarily judge people as harshly from playing the situation as it lays, either. It's hard to imagine how we might react to the same pressures, economic factors, ticking-clock timelines for success, and so forth.
@@GamingInTheWild Sorry for that! I didn't set out to be so harsh but as I started to respond I realized that I was quite annoyed.
What frustrates me is that there are perfect examples of how to go about development with sound and ethical methods that people seem to refuse to acknowledge. You can make ambitious games without seeking millions of dollars from outside investors.
Lately there have been several indie studios that have released videos about how they achieved what they did and the comment sections of those videos are absolutely infuriating. (definitely a contributing factor in my harshness)
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that (outside of luck/catching the zeitgeist) you work up to ambitious projects rather than come out the gates expecting people to fund them. Rembrandt didn't exit art school and expect to paint _The Night Watch._ Likewise, Supergiant would have been in trouble had they expected to make Hades (as it exists now) as their first (or second or third) game. You learn and grow and prove that you're capable of achieving what you set out to do over time.
As you acknowledge, the attitude that has pervaded development over the last decade is what has led to massive layoffs and like the 2008 financial meltdown, _people_ are responsible for that whether they're held accountable or not (by hiding behind systemic/structural failings). While it may not be "criminal" to take advantage of a corrupt situation, in the end it's still corruption and participation _is_ a personal choice. (look at the fraud statistics for covid-related government stimulus, it's staggering)
As for the Psychodyssey series, I've always intended to get to it but haven't yet invested the time. It's not a series I hold as dear as some but your mention of it here might tip the scales to finally tackling its enormous runtime.
@@the_elder_gamer it's so good! I can't praise it enough. Probably the single most insightful look at game development I've ever seen. And it also functions as a kind of office drama in a strange way, too.
1st Comment
I think @smokeback beat you to the punch, but good effort :)
@@GamingInTheWild I just so happened to load the video up when it showed 0 comments.
Oh well. Well done Smokeback.
Not gonna lie this was a very surface level take, you could have just said "not that innovative", the title is quite misleading.
Hello! I disagree that the title card is misleading. This video is about what iii says about the future of indie games - and especially, that they seem to be becoming more conservative, leaning on existing IP and working in an ever-narrower selection of genres-much like AAA. So the title card is right on the money IMO!