C0okie :3

hi, my previous ramblings on the triple-i initiative have materialized into an actual, if short, article

And really, that function would be completely fine if it wasn’t covered with this bizarre veneer, at times self-congratulatory and at others deliberately understated. The mentions of being “no frills,” having no sponsors or advertisements, and respecting the viewers’ time grates against the showcase’s implicit presence as a commercial, as does the white-knuckled clinging to the term “indie” even as they admittedly grow beyond its bounds and into something else, or the quiet explanation that there is no place for developers of this size at the big showcases while they self-describe as beloved fan favorites and top independent creators.

I agree that there should be a dedicated space for developers of this size, but it’s clear even at this point in games history that this fabricated one is a poor fit. It’s a disservice to us all when companies mature and, instead of humbly outgrowing old terminology, choose to "stay indie" in name alone in an attempt to maintain their grassroots goodwill.

Two things really stuck out to me after reading this:

1. It's fascinating how hard some people try to hold on to their "indie" cred, as if they're still operating on the same level as when they started. It's like when a well known local chain of quick service restaurants tries to claim that they're still a humble little neighbourhood shop and not McDonald's. Like yeah, McDonald's is massive of course you're not like them, but it's a little disingenuous to believe you're closer to the former than the latter based on the scale and the budget you have.

2. These descriptors are largely useless because they combine business-facing and consumer-facing criteria. What defines a blockbuster movie? It's a movie that's produced by a major studio, has a large production and marketing budget, and is aimed at mass-appeal. You don't define a blockbuster based on how well it gets reviewed, how much money it makes, how long it is, or how much it tries to push the boundaries of the cinematic arts. There's a lot of blockbuster movies that don't do any of that! When games are labelled AAA, indie or Triple-I, it just further divides them into useless categories that the layperson who plays them doesn't necessarily fully grasp (or even care about, much like the average moviegoer).

Publishers assess risk and are trying to make a profit. They need to know what game you plan on making as well as your anticipated budget, team size, and studio history to come to a decision. How much can they trust you to see this through and meet an agreed measure of quality? Players care about how much the game costs and what kind of experience they'll get out of it. Not only are those motivations incredibly broad and varied, but they can also change drastically depending on the context in which they're released (i.e. a solid single-player game during a wave of multiplayer releases) or how they're received (critically or culturally).

The games industry needs better descriptors, but it starts with deciding who these descriptors are actually for.

i always thought of indie as in ownership. an independent game was one that was owned by its creators. first party was made by the platform for the platform to sell the platform. publisher owned was whatever ubisoft does for the benefit of uibsoft's shareholders. and then there was indie, games made by people who wanted to make them for the benefit of making them.

when "indie" started to become a genre and cultural signifier on its own, it lost its meaning as a meaningful measurement of ownership. @lotus and @mikejwitz make excellent points about how nondescript the word is now. "triple i" is a stupid and misleading title, more marketing than anything else at this point.

i wish we could bring back AA