[PC] Rant: Are the Indie Bundle Creators Becoming Too Greedy?

[Mantis]

I'm going to state my honest opinion. I think the indie developers are being greedy. Whilst I'm mainly referring to the Humble Bundles in this thread, the general principle applies to a good few other bundles.

"But they hardly make an income as it is! And they're selling games for really cheap!"

Not true. Whilst I'll admit they probably weren't raking in a notable amount of cash before this bundle bombardment, I think things are going a little too far. When I say "too far", I'm referring to the quantity of these bundles and psychological blackmail. I have paid for the past bundles, but lately I just feel less enthusiastic about it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this whole craze grew massively when the success of the first Humble Bundle made international news.

What's the problem? Isn't giving to charity great? Yes, it is. Maybe you'll hate me for this, but whilst I think it's great that it's ultimately putting smiles on some kids' faces, I think it's in part a ploy. A façade. I say this because I believe I've noticed a shift in the default distribution of profits. By that, I mean that in the first Humble Bundle there was a large amount of money spent donated to Child's Play and the other charity. But recently I think the distributions have changed, with much more money going towards the Humble Bundle staff and the developers.

I say it's a ploy because the massive amount donated to charity in the first bundle was an excellent way to capture the masses' hearts. And guess what? All of those who paid were subscribed to the newsletter. And the bundle started going viral, and growing exponentially. Now that's a perfect scenario for releasing more bundles and gradually shifting the profits whilst maintaining a "for charity" image. Worse yet, in recent bundles you must beat the average to receive a small bonus.

What does that mean? It means you must get in quick and pay "right now!", when the bundle starts, to get the best deal. This is why the latest main bundles have generated over double the profit of past bundles. It's psychological blackmail, by definition. A marketing strategy. This is why many other indie developers have followed suit. Honestly, I've found some of the indie games offered in the bundles to be dull, but some are fantastic. It seems the dull/less interesting games were thrown in to make it appear as a better deal. Let's think about some of the best games so far. World of Goo, Super Meat Boy, Bit Trip Runner, Crayon Physics Deluxe, Darwinia, just for instance. These games have already been very successful.




Oh, bugger off you scrawny hipster. No you don't. This is what pisses me off. Let me say I have the dignity to spend more than a cent. I always spent a minimum of five dollars. But this is taking the piss. They're practically comparing themselves to the homeless, which is sort of offensive. Not to me personally, but I've known a couple of people who have been homeless. Obviously, it's not a nice thing to go through. You might think I'm going too far, but it's the principle of the matter. Most of these devs already made a satisfactory amount of profit from their creations, despite being a small team no less! But the fact of the matter is that they're making MILLIONS of dollars, and even distributed into fractions, are probably living on more cash than developers working their arses off on a Hollywood budget game could only dream of.

Yeah. I probably went too far with this...

[Marty Kirra]

My opinion on Humble Bundles is a positive one. I don't really see the attitude you're talking about concerning indie developers, and I'm not sure if you're blanketing all indie developers under the same "millions of dollars" category or not. But besides that, I think what you're missing is that one of the reason we support these developers is because of the innovation they provide. Many of these games would never see widespread success. Investing in a Humble Bundle means more than just supporting the developer, yes, that is ONE of the reasons. But you have to look at the bigger picture. Every year Activision releases a Call of Duty game to millions of sales. Mainstream gaming is stuck in FPS land for the foreseeable future, and it SUCKS.

Now, I enjoy playing Call of Duty from time to time. But what happened to the creativity and innovation from the last generation? It's pretty much gone, with a few notable exceptions. With these indie games, earning who knows how much or not, they're showing that innovation still exists within the community and that people will pay to play a game that isn't an FPS or something "mainstream".

I think that's what you (and any other potential buyers) should concentrate on. Your money is supporting creativity.

[Mantis]

I figured Call of Duty would be thrown into this discussion. I didn't think it would be this soon, though. I see what you're saying, but if you take Call of Duty out of the picture and consider the amount of retail games in this generation that are produced with an amazing amount of creative input, I don't think your argument holds as much water. But, each to their own. We have our own opinions. I just don't think we're quite in "FPS land" yet. Ask around. There are plenty of excellent games out there produced by large studios. Mainstream isn't always terrible. Heck, you yourself admit to being a part-time CoD gamer.

If you could please enlighten me with decisive proof that the last generation's innovation is "pretty much gone" (insinuated that it doesn't exist elsewhere in your post), I'll be more in agreement with your points. One thing I must make clear is I'm not in any way against indie games. I've played more indie games than most people. I used to be a game design student. Though that isn't my current primary path, I'm not necessarily straying away from it either. I used to play indie games every day. However, I must argue that they're not god's gift to gaming. And actually, using the same reasoning you used for this generation of retail games, I will say (although not non-existing), recently, indie games have lacked creativity. Too often indie games are developed with great emphasis of being "artistic".

I'll go through a couple of the games I mentioned. For instance, Darwinia was innovative. But since it's from 2005, you could argue that it's a late previous generation game. Bit Trip Runner (I haven't played the other games) is hardly innovative at all. It follows a recent trend of musical interaction in games, which isn't exclusive to the indie scene. It's an on-the-rails musical game, in which you must press buttons to avoid obstacles. Sometimes collecting objects changes the music slightly. This has been done many times. What's original? I can't fault World of Goo/Crayon Physics Deluxe, and whilst I love Super Meat Boy, have you ever heard of I Wanna Be the Guy?

[Marty Kirra]

I probably can't really support my argument with anything, since my focus on gaming isn't really anything to talk about. It's more of a "gut-feeling", and I do believe we're in "FPS land" because there are a TON of FPS games coming out every month. Either that, or third person wall-cover shooters. Hell, I don't think I can even speak for these "Humble Bundles" other than the fact that I personally enjoy them from time to time. I buy games like Castle Crashers and whatever else because I enjoy creativity, but I'm not really considering myself much of a gamer nowadays anyway. I put Skyrim down after about three hours, after all. :P

I didn't mean to get into an argument at all, I will say though that I agree with what you've said in your last post. Not EVERY mainstream game is a FPS or lacks creativity. Just the ones that get the most press do. I think we live in a world of sequels, and it's easier to make Dead Space 3 than give that other hypothetical, creative, and experimental horror game a chance because mainstream devs know that Dead Space will make money. Same with Assassin's Creed. That was a franchise that I thought was absolutely stunning and now we're to the point of yearly sequels. While, and I've said I agree with this, not every big title is a FPS/cover shooter, those are the ones that get the sales and the press attention.

Keep in mind, despite the fact that my main "argument" if you will is about FPS over-saturation, I come from an FPS background. I got into the gaming scene thanks to Wolfenstein 3D and Doom. I will concede any of my points (as most of this is clearly my opinion anyways), because you've studied game design. You're most likely more knowledgeable and I wouldn't consider myself a big gamer by any means.