Trending Games | World of Warcraft | Overwatch | The Division 2 | Star Wars: The Old Republic

    Facebook Twitter YouTube YouTube.Gaming Discord
Quick Game Jump
Members:3,840,192 Users Online:0

Show Blog

Link to this blogs RSS feed Staff Blog

The staff of gets together to bring you some behind the scenes insights on stories, the industry and the site itself.

Author: staffblog

Contributors: BillMurphy,MikeB,garrett,SBFord,Grakulen,

How Some Players and Companies Have It Wrong With Indies

Posted by Stradden_bak Friday September 4 2009 at 2:28PM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!

This week’s blog entry, for me, is going to be fairly short and to the point, owing mostly to the fact that there’s been something that’s been gnawing at me all week that I wanted to get off my chest.

My rant this time around isn’t a new one. I can’t for the life of me remember when, but I’m 100% certain that I’ve written about this topic before, but it’s worth repeating one way or the other.

My beef is with Indy MMO studios, both the way that they present themselves and the way that they and their games are viewed by the MMO audience.

I’m going to start by saying that it takes a lot of guts, as an independent MMO developer, to try to jump into a field already crowded with huge players and try to produce something that catches on. There really aren’t too many “big name” indies out there. Off the top of my head, I’m just looking at CCP (though Mythic used to top the list as well, pre-EA).

Now, I’m going to go on to say that, in terms of players and their approach to games developed by independent studios, some folks out there just don’t get it. I often read thread after thread where players complain that the newest indie studio release doesn’t have the highest end graphics, or has a number of bugs at launch. That, or I read unfavorable comparisons between new Indy Release X and Big Studio Game Y. To those folks, I say… well, freaking duh. I mean really. These companies don’t have nearly as much money as their larger corporate counterparts and as a result aren’t going to have the same time and resources available.

It absolutely twists me in knots to watch the way these things progress in terms of public opinion. I mean, if an indie studio produces something less than the AAA benchmark, people tear into them. If that same indie studio decides that they want to produce something bigger and better to appease their fan base and signs up with one of the big corporations, all of the sudden they’ve sold out. I mean, really, it’s a no-win situation.

Players need to understand that there is a world of difference between the two kinds of game. If you’re going to look at supporting many of the interesting and innovative ideas behind independent MMOs, then you have to be willing to accept lesser qualities in other areas of production due to the reduced money that is available. That being said, as we are reminded time after time, players are viewed by the industry primarily as consumers, and consumers deserve to get the quality of product that they pay for.

This is where I turn my attention, and the big ol finger of blame, directly onto the independent MMO developers themselves. I believe that my colleague, Dana Massey actually made this exact same point in one of his columns, but it just makes so much damned sense, it’s hard to not repeat it:

You, as developers, need to be honest with yourselves. If your game can’t compete with the big company financed AAA MMO titles, you need to accept that. Once you do accept that, there are a couple of approaches that you can take:

First, as my colleague Dana suggested, you should stop charging the same amount for your games as the big boys do. The bottom line that is, if you’re one of the ones complaining that everyone is comparing your game to WoW, and you’re charging the same as Blizzard, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Next, make sure that you manage expectations around your game. If you’re an indie studio, and you know that you can’t compete with the AAA titles, don’t try to promote your game that way. Be honest with your potential players, and be transparent about the process that you are using, and you will, at the very least, garner some goodwill.

The bottom line is that we compare your game to WoW and the others because you force us to. Give us a reason not to and we won’t… Well, some of us. Others you’ll never get through to no matter what you do.

Now, just to swing back to the players again so that it doesn’t look like I’m being too one-sided in all of this. You need to educate yourself about what it is you’re buying and manage your own expectations. In order to play the, “we’re consumers and we will vote with our wallets” card… the most powerful one we have, by the way, we have to understand what we’re buying both in terms of quality and context.

brostyn writes:

I just want a good game. Just because its from an independent studio doesn't mean I will forgive its flaws. Mythic made a top notch game in DAoC.


The bottom line is that I will play based off enjoyment not this silly arguement of Indie vs. AAA studio.

Fri Sep 04 2009 3:04PM Report
megarax writes:

Let me be 1337: +1


Fri Sep 04 2009 3:11PM Report
wolfmann writes:

Players would never understand this hehe.

When a "major" studio can spend more money on the advertising of their game than a Indie studio can spend developing the game...

Well, anyone with a brain should be able to see that there will be differences in what you get.

Heh, and often Indies are the ones taking risks, since they can't get a foot in on the "safe clone" market, and risks don't come flawless.


Tho I have to agree on Indies wanting to charge the same. Polish the game, expand it, and raise the price over time(years) until both the price and quality matches big company titles. Use the experiences from other indie game companies(single player games), where they experienced that selling their games cheaper made them earn triple what they earned selling at full (AA) price.

Fri Sep 04 2009 3:18PM Report
wootin writes:

Players and Indy MMO creators both need to understand what is being sold - a different way of spending your playtime during the month. That's the only reason for playing any other game than - well, any other game. I'm currently re-trying Eve, but am going to gladly quit for a game with more excitement and no RMT system as soon as one comes out (come on, SWTOR!!).

So at that time, I'll be trading the same amount of money for a different game to play, and hopefully having more fun. The money itself is not even a significant amount to quibble over, you could otherwise have bought 1 pizza with that 15 bucks - during the entire month.

What indy developers need to sell is a different, more interesting and more fun way to spend your playtime than the big grind corporations are providing.

Fri Sep 04 2009 5:29PM Report
Papadam writes:

You dont consider Turbine a "big name" indie company?


Fri Sep 04 2009 7:19PM Report
Blazz writes:

Don't forget Tripwire Interactive - although it isn't really an MMO, Killing Floor I think did exactly what you said with their approach to how they sold it.

They did piggy back on the success of Valve, but Valve sort of stole their "co-op survival" idea with Left 4 Dead (which they have actually said somewhere, I believe), so it was a reasonable trade.

Still, they're selling their game for $20. It isn't as polished, but it has some nice ideas and a pretty neat "zed-time" feature that makes making zombie heads explode just that little bit cooler.

Oh, and S2 have taken the 'game' DotA and transformed it into Heroes of Newerth - it is also pretty fantastic, and about $30. I would consider S2 games a bit of an indie studio.


I'ma stop ranting about different "indie" places I think of now...

Fri Sep 04 2009 10:55PM Report
Greyed writes:

As much as I love Turbine as a company I can't consider them "Indie" when they produced one of the first big-3 MMOs.  UO, Everquest and Asheron's Call were the beginning and end of the North American MMO market for a few years there.  Hard to be Indie when you were the Granddaddy.  ;)

But what is "indie" in MMOs?  Really?  CCP?  What about 3 Rings and Y!PP?  The slew of Korean MMOs that make it huge in Asian then get ported here hoping to catch the American market (How's that working for you NCSoft?).  

I'm lost as to what is considered indie since the term isn't defined other than one data point, CCP.

Sat Sep 05 2009 4:29AM Report
Papadam writes:

I think Indie means that they are not owned by a major company. Blizzard is owned by Vivendi/Universal and therefor are not indie, SOE is naturally not indie since they are a part of Sony. Mythic is owned by EA and so on. Turbine and CCP (as far as I know) still are privatly owned and therefor "Indie". I think Funcom is a public tradeable company and not Independant.

I think Turbine is doing what Stradden suggests since LotrO have cheaper monthly sub and box price than WoW. DDO going F2P is another example.

Sat Sep 05 2009 6:24AM Report
Sarr writes:

Well, maybe Stradden didn't mention Turbine nor DDO, but it looks like he's talking about DDO. Really, fits it perfectly.

Turbine is probably the biggest Indie MMO company to date. And that their LotrO CAN compete with WoW, as Mines of Moria has shown, is really absolute an phenomenon.

Though I think their D&D Online should still expand it's own niche, without it being presented like a "wow-competitor".

Yes, if Turbine had those loads of cash like Blizzard, they'd probably or even - surely! - make DDO look and be so polished in every detail as WoW is. But they just aren't able to do so. It costs too much and takes too much working time from their developers.

So DDO - with it being probably the most stand-out, original MMO fantasy game - should be marketed and talked about by Turbine acordingly. This way there won't be so much misunderstanding.

I'm playing the headstart. It seems there are LOTS of players on new server, Cannith, which probably singed up for beta but haven't played much.

And what is their response? Well, I've never seen so positive response from new players in an MMO. And I've played lots. Just ask people on general chat for their honest opinions, and you'll see. I've asked the same in beta, and opinions were so positive as well.

So either this game has so much potential and will be a total success starting on the 9th of Sept, no matter what, or should watch losely how they present themselves or fail.

DDO is not WoW in every field (meanig it has better things than WoW too), and if you seek the level of polish of WoW - you'll hate DDO.

But if you know that the game is done by a passionate, Indie developer team, you'll understand why we love this game so much, and aren't going to play WoW anytime soon. Well, probably never again.

I've played WoW for 3 years, and now it pales compared to DDO for me. Is DDO nearly as polished and so full of very nice fluff? Not at all!

Sat Sep 05 2009 7:50AM Report
Sarr writes:

Inide means "Indenpendent". So when you're not owned by Activision, for example, you're Indie.

; )

Sat Sep 05 2009 7:51AM Report
maniacfox writes:

 Like the first poster, I just want a good game. If you are an indie developer with not much cash and turn out a poor imitation of WOW then wonder why you don't have many subscribers then wake up and smell the coffee.

I'd love to create my own supercar, it would totally rock. But I can't possibly compete with Ferrari & co. with some kart that I knocked up in my garage.

For me and for a lot of people I imagine, the subscription cost is pretty much irrelevant. I am a working adult, £15 a month is nothing, I won't play a substandard came just because it is £5 a month or free. I just want a good game.

Sat Sep 05 2009 10:35AM Report
Senadina writes:

Well I agree if an indy company game is not AAA quality, it should not be priced the same. And I am the first to say that $15 a month for an MMO is the cheapest entertainment to be found. At the same time, I want value for my money and it galls me to pay the same fee for an inferior product. For example, if Fallen Earth were to charge less per month, I would seriously consider it as a second MMO, because I would like to support this vision even tho the  gameplay is somewhat disappointing. But I can't justify paying the same, or actually more, than I pay for LoTRO ( since I have the 3 months for $30 package).

Sat Sep 05 2009 1:49PM Report
gakule writes:

The problems with video games lies with us, as the consumer. We all say we want something different, but if it's too different it's not good enough. If it's too close to any game, it's automatically a "WoW clone". There really isn't a happy medium for developers to design a game.

Everything is either too far off to take a second look at, or too close to even think "Well, I want a new story. A new world. Even if it may be the same game mechanics" Hello... there are only so many mechanics for a game that will work. Just like a car, there are only so many ways to design an engine. There are essential parts. The core of every car is, essentially, the same. The only true difference (aside from the obvious upgrades to the engine and the rest of the non-cosmetic features) is the body built around it, and the name that goes with it.

A company can't creatively develop a brand new game, with brand new concepts and idea's without a lot of people saying "Oh no, that would never work. That would be a terrible game"

Give stuff a chance, try new things. Worst case scenario, you can say you tried it and how crummy it is, instead of having no basis for an opinion.

Sat Sep 05 2009 9:40PM Report
MissyShade writes:

I'm actually really excited to see some of the independent developers breaking into the market now. They have it tough - with hundreds of competitors, and a good handful being juggernauts of their own, it's a daunting field.

It's also an exciting one - because MMOs have such a player/staff interaction, indie MMOs can succeed well without millions of subscribers. There are some games I thought wouldn't be kicking around for long that have been around for over five years and counting (like EVE Online); there are others that I thought would succeed impressively but never got off the ground (anyone remember Unknown?). 

But you know, there will always be people who think that a company's profit or the cost of the subscription equates to a high quality game. There will also be people who are graphics junkies who won't touch a game if it won't practically require them to upgrade to the next best gaming rig around. You can't please everyone.

But for those of us who have been around MMOs for a while - I think a lot of us are looking for a change, and it's the indies who are going to do it.

Sun Sep 06 2009 10:09AM Report
Xondar123 writes:

You forgot Cryptic. Cryptic was an indy company too when they released City of Heroes.

Sun Sep 06 2009 12:24PM Report
grimfall writes:

He doesn't really mean "Indie" he means "startup, which is does not land a big distribution deal".  Turbine is out, the Fallen Earth guys and the Horizon guys making that WoW clone are who he's talking about.

Sun Sep 06 2009 3:07PM Report
neoterrar writes:

The true cost of MMOs is time. Adjusting the pricing makes little difference.

If i have a finite amount of time, in theory, I would spend it in the most enjoyable way possible. Great ideas get buried in poor games, making the small amount of pleasure painful to attain.


Sun Sep 06 2009 3:08PM Report
Ozmodan writes:

I think the problem with many Indie companies is that they lack focus.  Indie companies for the most part don't have the resources to provide huge feature lists.   They need to decide on core features and do them well rather than the scatter gun approach of trying to be all things to all players.

Aventurine is a good example of this.  Darkfall is not a bad game, but Aventurine has promised so many features and implemented many of them poorly it has suffered from bad publicity.   Then they had the nerve to charge initial players double if they wanted to move to a new US server.  No wonder people are highly skeptical of Indie companies.

Now we have Quest Online working on Alganon and they seem to ascribe to the focus theory.  It remains to be seen if they can implement the features they promise well, but at least we won't have feature overload with their product.

Players have good reason to be highly skeptical of these Indie companies, they have been burned by them so many times.  There are not a lot of success stories here.

Sun Sep 06 2009 3:48PM Report
ThomasN7 writes:

You have to learn how to crawl before you can walk they say. Without a game under many developers belt, they still feel they can master the art of making a mmo. Its pretty sad and the gaming community suffers in the end. Perfect eamples are Darkfall and Mortal Online mmos. has anyone ever played  a game from these companies prior to their mmo releases ?

Sun Sep 06 2009 6:31PM Report
RealmLords writes:

Indies FTW!


Sun Sep 06 2009 11:18PM Report
Jairoe03 writes:

I love the example of using the term "WoW clone" because I think many people fail to notice how slow games are usually at evolving and changing at improving. I think too many consumers out there are asking for too much, too quickly but whether they like it or not, a game and its engine(s) has to evolve and slowly improve over time like all the other games since god knows when (Chess, was that even perfectly balanced when it came out?). And WoW was in fact a clone of EQ when it came out so why is everything even called a WoW clone again when it is a clone of something else. EQ was just a graphical interface for RPG rules/elements, the idea in itself wasn't original and it was more or less a dream come true for many people thinking of the same exact thing (or similar). Games take time to develop and improve upon and it doesn't happen in a manner of a couple years (especially when half of it is trial and error with large populations of people).

Sun Sep 06 2009 11:25PM Report
theAsna writes: Pricing is always a tradeoff. With a low customer base the price must be appropriate to run and develop the game. With a big customer base (only by the power of sheer numbers) you could demand a lower price and still earn money. Despite the high initial costs for a commercial MMO. Keep in mind that maintenance and development costs will be reduced over time (staff will be moved to other projects, temporarily or permantently). That may sound like a paradox: big customer base allows for lower prices, low customer base doesn't allow low/(no) prices because you have to pay bills out of your own pocket then. This may break an indy company's neck financially. But then again you cannot really influence customer demand (maybe to some extent by pricing and marketing). In the end the product must convince a customer. And you cannot please everyone, nor keep customers forever. Mon Sep 07 2009 4:25AM Report
indiramourn writes:

Indy schmindy, it's the quality of the game that matters verses the price to play.  If a so called "Indy" developer with an obviously inferior product in the offing charges triple A title prices to play then they will be compared to the trigle A title developers--I'm looking at you Aventurine. 

Mon Sep 07 2009 2:21PM Report
dealaka writes:

There are 4 problems I see with indys though most of it revolves around the MMO market in general.

1 - Oh look, let's do another fantasy game. Why is it 80% of the market insists on doing another fantasy game, but rather then take a different approach it's all the same. This is much like war time shooters on consoles. Game developers try to keep redoing world war II, and vietnam, again, and again, and again.

There are very few actual 'unique' MMOs that try new ground. And even when they do something brand new like a superhero game, it often falls into a 'well we're a super hero game designed like WoW'.

Features such as crafting, personal housing, and open world sandbox, which allows smaller studios to compete with the big boys, but they all want to do the same features.

Let's take a good look at Cryptic (I hate cryptic btw). They have an awesome character creation ability, but do they use that for their other games like GW? Hell no. So why? Isn't that one thing that made people flock to CoH?

The problem is, until people break the mold and get out of the same ol' 'everyone has a skill bar and classes' then it remains the same. Until game companies really care enough to focus on the consumer rather then what they want to do, we'll see the same junk over and over again.

2 - The problem with the gaming systems - I've mad this comment at least a dozen times in my history of playing MMOs, and will probably make it another dozen times before I stop playing em. Why is it that game developers insist on having two seperate systems in every game? One for npcs and one for players. It's frustrating and often times, I imagine it's a reason more people don't play mmos.

When you have critters with melee, ranged, defense, and regeneration abilities and players don't, well it comes across as a little unfair. When your spellcasters can cast forever and never be out of energy, it's a little unfair. If your npcs have powers or abilities players do not have, or ever get it's a little unfair. When the cap for enemies is usually much higher then players and players will never reach it, it's a little unfair. Combined? People stop playing. And it's amusing to me because Indies as well as big games do this.

Imagine it's like this. You're playing monopoly with the computer except the computer starts with an extra 300k, six properties, and the ability to roll twice per turn (not including doubles). Would you play? Some would sure. They want to prove they're hardcore, but if the game caters to the hardcore and ignores everyone else don't expect to have tons of players.

3 - Grindy grindy grinding. - Oh you want to play. Sure but it's a year to get to level max. Oh you want to be able to buy that sword, that shield, that house, that guild hall, or that pet. Well then, start working on it and by the time Game X 2 comes out you might have it.

Every Indy game falls into the same traps that the big games do. Same formulas, same A****** way of running a game. Players exist for the amusement of the developers. Those who 'want to play our game' have to devote six years to be anything special.

Can you blame people for taking a look at the requirements for things and say "um, I'm going to go play outside". And yet these are games that wonder why they can't capture the mainstream audience. It's simple really. No one wants to spend a week killing or drinking for a title that does nothing.

And yet, nearly ever game (either producers or developers) have tons of grinding, even though they might say 'we don't believe in grinding'. I often sit and wonder, um do you play your own game?

4 - PvP and rebalancing - This is the one thing that always always burns me up. A game might have a good if not great following and the developers suddenly decide to 'add PvP' to their game.

Why? In any game the amount of PvPers (especially fantasy game) is about 2%. Arenas sit empty. Yet even indy developers want to add this to their game inspite that much of their fan base would like them to spend time on something PvE related.

And it's not just adding PvP to a game, it's the loads of rebalancing and changing the game to be 'fair' even though it never is. This means that the game changes and is nerfed because of PvP elements, even if the developers say 'This is to address PvE issues'.

I can understand skills changing. I can understand games changing, but changing the game for 2% of the population when the other 65% are angered over it doesn't make sense to me.

Conclusion - Until Indy developers do something original and do not fall into the trap of 'being a WoW killer' and going after the same audience as every other game, then yeah, it won't change.

I don't always hold consumers to blame simply because often times the game they bought changes significantly over time. Yes it's futile for players to keep playing based on the time and effort they put into a game, hoping it gets better, but that's how people are.

I would say, that if we want better Indy games, the industry has to be more friendly to them. Right now it's "we were here first, and you're all trash" rather then realizing "if new products come out, we grow better. Someone might do something that inspires older products"

Until that point we're stuck between a rock like Everquest and a hard place like WoW.

Mon Sep 07 2009 3:41PM Report
Khaunshar writes:

The problem IMO is actually a bit different.

In some other business niches, such as cardboard games, trading card games, roleplaying games (offline), tabletop and especially in single player video games, the "WoW factor" has shown one big problem that Indie companies are also struggling with: You are competing with some true monsters for the 4-5hrs of free time MAXIMUM of the average player. Those with more time usually have no jobs and thus you may get something out of them by going cheaper, but for most players, 15 dollar or 5 dollar will not matter: Its really nothing.

How does any hobby, leisure activity or entertainment compete with 15 dollar/month for something like WoW? Which also combines a least-effort bonus, a no-setup-time bonus, perfect availability to anyone with a PC and semi-passive entertainment close to the all-time-timesink TV. You simply cannot compete with that as long as the consumer considers WoW an alternative, or an interesting idea.

So, as an Indie developer especially, you have to stop trying to cater to that audience. You will not get it. You cannot deliver, your game will not be good enough, and you cannot beat its pricetag most likely, or if you can, it probably wont matter anyway, because 15 dollar a month is nothing really.

It comes down to finding a good formula for something that is not WoW, that is not one of the monster games, and produce that. CCP shows with EVE how it can work. LotRO sort of is still a semi-success I suppose, and a lesson can be learned there about trying for a slightly different audience. Unfortunately, a lot of examples did not work, and the MMO graveyard is filled to the brim with bad copycats, bad ideas and mistakes.

Learn from that, and then make something that doesnt try to play with the big guys. You ll never make it.

Mon Sep 07 2009 5:13PM Report
deviliscious writes:

I agree with Stradden on this.  If you are playing an Indy game, expect it to be an Indy game, and if you are selling an Indy game charge appropriately for your content.

I would much rather an Indy company use an older graphix engine, and focus on  game content  that is not currently being offered than try to comete with the larger games by doing the same thing they are.

Players play Indy games for a different expierence, not for the same ol' same ol'.

What I could never understand was why no one has yet to take concepts of the older games to another level. Instead they dropped content when they upgraded graphix engines rather than taking the older games to the max  by  focusing their resources on expanding the game content, player freedoms, abilities, customization, and mechanics.

gameplay >>> graphix.

Mon Sep 07 2009 10:48PM Report
ET3D writes:

It'd have been nicer if Stradden gave an example of indy games. People in the comments have had a guess at it, but it's really difficult to address what he sees as problems when you don't know what games he's talking about. For me, what I consider Indy doesn't cost $15 per month, which is why I didn't get what he was talking about.

The way I see Indy, most of them will be generic. It's people who think they can fix something in existing games, so they something that's derivative and changes some aspects. If that's the feature you've been looking for, it might make the game worth playing.

Tue Sep 08 2009 12:23AM Report
Warlaorm writes:


Now, I’m going to go on to say that, in terms of players and their approach to games developed by independent studios, some folks out there just don’t get it. I often read thread after thread where players complain that the newest indie studio release doesn’t have the highest end graphics, or has a number of bugs at launch.\





If your company is a big guy or a little guy one rule applies to you both.........buggy titles = terrible for your company. With all the choices out there most gamers won't buy from a company that has a terrible rep. Independent developers pumping out titles so buggy that they are basically unplayable are in some ways to blame for the gamers being so quick to pass a negative judgment against these independent companies.

If you want to compare a company to Blizzard don’t compare it to WoW, but compare it instead to Blizzards quality and standards at launch for its titles over the years. Blizzard has been around for a long time. Blizzard has never had a reputation for releasing titles before they are ready. The only way an independent MMO developer stands a chance is to release a quality product. Even if they don’t take over the MMO world over night they will ensure that their next release will still have a good chance at being purchased. Blizzard had a HUGE loyal fan base before the release of WoW. Diablo II, StarCraft, WarCraft, and other quality titles ensured that Blizzard would have a great start as it entered the MMO realm.

Most gamers that have been around a while remember the days when buying a title from an unknown developer was (more times than not) like throwing money away. You couldn’t use it because it was to buggy to run. You couldn’t return it, stores refused to take back any software that had been opened. All you could do was enjoy the awesome art work on the box and ponder the all the fun you could have had if that independent developer hadn’t knowingly released a worthless title.


Tue Sep 08 2009 1:23AM Report
CyanSword writes:

small companies charged the same before wow though, both CCP and Funcom for example (AO not AoC in this case) so I don't see neccessarily why they should be forced to lower their price just because there is a huge monster success in the genre.

After all Starcraft or Warcraft still selling bucketloads down teh years didnt make RTS companies charge less, or you dont pay less to see an indie film than you do a summer blockbuster. I think that argument is flawed unless the game they make is smaller, but for something like EVE, AoC, Champions etc I think the fees are fine.

Now really small studios like those behind Darkfall and Fallen Earth, with products clearly a grade below the AAA titles, then sure, maybe there I might agree a little, but not by much, maybe just offering more options or tiered subscription rates.

Tue Sep 08 2009 2:36AM Report
SnarlingWolf writes:

It really comes down to what you pointed at to the Indie devs. Don't charge what the big companies charge. When I buy an Indie any other genre game it's always at most half the amount of what the major companies charge, often times it is like 10 bucks.

As soon as you charge $50 plus a $15 monthly fee for an indie MMO, there is only one way left to look at it: It has to be compared to the big name MMOs which cost the same. And once that happens the game gets slammed because it can not compete.

It completly boils down to the cost factor, they charge less people will look at the games differently.

Tue Sep 08 2009 12:10PM Report
DaX.9 writes:

So you are telling if they are indy they do not posses enough skills to produce high quality? It is not funds, it is level of involvement of each person and their skills, many of people start in indie just for CV not to actually make good game. And when they have 2 or 3 finnished games they seek job in big companies. That is real trouble with indy not money.

Wed Sep 09 2009 1:20AM Report
Butterball writes:

"The problem is, until people break the mold and get out of the same ol' 'everyone has a skill bar and classes' then it remains the same."

So based on that particular piece of logic you would only ever purchase one RTS, one FPS and one of every other game type as they all use similar "common" themes?

Wed Sep 09 2009 9:41AM Report
comerb writes:

 An indy game that charges $10 as opposed to $15 wouldn't change my mind about playing it.  $15 dollars a month for the amount of entertainment an MMO can provide is an absolute steal, I'm not going to cheapskate it and play an inferior product.  

Hell even if the game's free I'm not going to play it.  There is only so much time in a day to play video games, I'm going to play the best game available.  If Indy companies want my business they need to go outside of the box and create something unique. That's why CCP is successful.  CCP gets my $15 dollars because they have a damn fine game that appeals to me in a way no other game on the market does.

You are starting to see this more with game's like Global Agenda, Jump-gate Evolutions, and Fallen Earth.  While I think some of Fallen Earth's core concepts doom it to a life of mediocrity, it was damn close to being another Eve.


Sun Oct 11 2009 1:32AM Report
erepublik51 writes:

erepublik is bes strategy game in the world,play with us and 350,000 in the world and be part of this amazing game,direct LINK is:

Sat Jan 23 2010 3:30AM Report writes:
Login or Register to post a comment