Game programmer, designer, director; retired quadball player; antimeme; radical descriptivist; antilabel; Moose;

Working at Muse Games. Directed Embr, worked on Wildmender and Guns of Icarus, Making new secret stuffs

Opinions are everyone else's

posts from @Queso2469 tagged #indiedev

also: #indie game dev, #indie dev

I know there's not too many of us in the competitive multiplayer indie games field but, as described it would put a ton of us out of business. When you dig into what's actually being proposed it would actually simply immediately kill development on the vast majority of independent games reliant on server/client architecture. It would also, pretty explicitly, drive most larger developers off doing live service games. You might not like live service games. That's extremely different than saying developers should be banned from making live service games without extreme architectural and legal constraints that incentivize their death in multiple ways.

And like, I would love better games preservation. I advocate heavily in my studio for making our games playable when we inevitably go offline or out of business. We've put over a decade of work into our networking systems to make it possible for us to do. But most devs don't have that capital and luxury. Games preservation is not more important than allowing people to create the art they want to. People have the right to create art that will self destruct. You can address the consumer rights issues with huge developers rapidly vanishing games and licenses without binding all devs to a poorly thought out scheme that misunderstands games as a product, service, and art-form.

And I don't think it would really even preserve many of the games that still managed to launch. It would incentivize tearing out and removing chunks of the game forever, because they can't be made sanely survivable past product end of life. You'd be saving corpses of games, made to meet the bare minimum standard of "playable". (And lord would I love to see EU regulators try and define what playable means in the context of games that are updated weekly with a mix of feature adds and removals.)

The creator of the petition stands behind the defense of "it's not law yet". But his intent is very clear, and that intent, if seen through, harms us all. Worse yet, he wants it pushed through quickly and easily. It's very explicit in his videos. This is not a sane regulatory scheme. This is not a narrowly targeted petition to hold bad actors accountable. It is, quite frankly, entitlement made manifest and used as a cudgel against all game developers as if we are a single entity out to harm consumers. It's a danger to video games as an artistic medium and indie developer's livelihoods.



The biggest difference between a new game designer and an experienced game designer is understanding the difference between being able to create interesting systemic interactions with elegance and balance, and the role of the designer as someone who's job is to primarily create systems that can be adequately communicated to players who, fundamentally, have a limited input and output capacity physically, and will never perceive all elements of a design you put in front of them. Communicability is often the single most important element of any system or mechanic, including the decision to not communicate systems or mechanics. The systemic is endlessly interesting; the perceptual is endlessly important.



The single thing I find the most stifling as a game designer is controller support. It's the thing that most makes me want to simply quit team based game development and make truly tiny indie projects. I hate that the vast majority of games have to work with two low precision stick inputs that you can't use while pressing the majority of the buttons on the gamepad. I hate how it's been shifting my favorite genres into worse and slower versions of themselves for decades. I hate how I simply cannot make design and input decisions without filtering them through a control scheme that happened to stop improving the moment it became almost usable for previously flourishing PC game genres.



vectorpoem
@vectorpoem
  • they were poor and it gave them joy
  • they lived in a country where it wasn't available
  • they saw it had already sold 6+ million copies
  • they wanted to see what all the fuss was about
  • their grody older brother scratched their disc and it never quite loaded again
  • they did so 15 years after its release and heard that its director, the only guy still drawing a paycheck from the publisher, was a real asshole
  • they felt like it
  • they bought it years ago but the mechanism that allows them to access their legal copy went away
  • they won't be born for another 135 years and are accessing it via the DPRNA Global Culture Archive (Silicon Age section)

joewintergreen
@joewintergreen

reason bein': someone already put it on there but it wasn't the latest version and i didn't want people playing the bugged shitty one. so i put a little message on there like "hey if you torrent this and like it i'd appreciate it if you bought it if you can" and a bunch of pirates went and bought it on itch, and some of em even tipped more than the price of the game

then! totalbiscuit had a problem with this so he talked about what an idiot i was in a video and exposed me to even more supportive pirates. pirates rule sometimes


Queso2469
@Queso2469

I told someone to pirate my game because he tried to gotcha me for selling a game that was critical of capitalism. I hope it twisted his brain into a knot.