58 points

Wrong question, in my humble opinion. A bubble is speculative at its core. It’s about traders, the stock market, investors, speculators and shit placing much more value on a thing than what it’s worth. The distance with reality grows massive, until everybody wakes up and “pop!” all that sweet sweet wealth (or savings, for the peasants) vanished into thin air. Think housing market or beanie babies.

The question here is if indie game dev can remain sustainable. It’s like restaurants: the more there are, the harder it gets. The risk is not nearly as sudden and explosive as a bubble though. If there are too many, some shops close, others shrink.

Furthermore, the tools and knowledge required for gamedev keep getting more readily available. It’s an art too, so there will always be someone somewhere with the overwhelming drive to do it, profitability be damned.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

dot com was regarded as a bubble and seem to have the same amount of sustainability as indie games: good ones are good and bad ones are bad

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points

Dot com was a bubble because you could call your company anything with a “dot com” on the end and get funding for it without a business strategy. Indie games never got that treatment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Well I guess because you can’t really invest… even without funding you have tons of un strategy on indiegala

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Domain name were a speculative asset. This supports what the person you’re replying to is arguing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

And yet some of my favorite indie games are games practically nobody’s ever heard of. Most recent was Metal Unit, a game that I don’t know how I have in my Steam library and somehow evades the internet’s favorite rule despite the main character being an anime girl in a bodysuit. At time of writing there are 17 players in-game.

So while good games are good and bad games are bad, the good ones may not necessarily be sustainable.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

The article actually addresses this, but I feel “indie games bubble” is simply too broad a term. Is there a medium-high budget indie game bubble? Maybe. But can indie games in general even have a bubble? Fuckloads of indie games are passion projects, or made from crowdfunding money, or otherwise not based around the idea that they have to be the “product” of a sustainable business, making the whole idea of a “bubble” pointless. If the bubble pops, will itch indies stop making games? Will passionate solo devs languishing at double digit Steam review numbers stop releasing games? I don’t think they will.

permalink
report
reply
28 points

The indie game market will crash and countless of investors will sit on their virtual mountain of now worthless indie games

permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points

I better sell my 1,000 copies of Celeste I’ve been sitting on then. I was waiting for retirement, but might as well take the tax hit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

No. There will always be a demand for new videogames and indie studios make the best ones.

If anything the AAA bubble is bursting right now.

permalink
report
reply
13 points

The AAA bubble burst a while ago. Complete AAA games rarely release anymore because studios keep trying to push the boundary on scope and size instead of focusing on quality.

The limited size of indie games means they’ll always have the capability to ship complete. They don’t always because the teams are much smaller and less experienced, but I’ve always found more enjoyment out of a passionate indie game than a corporatized AAA.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

What’s with this focus on the word “complete”? Usually I just see it from people salty about the idea that a game ever gets DLC, but we’re rarely seeing the kinds of things we saw in the late 00s and early 2010s where games would have a “missing chapter” or whatever, so if something about modern games is being described by how “complete” they are, it seems like a bad descriptor to me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

More that now that patches are easy to implement across any platform you don’t have to ship something that works well day 1 anymore, nor does it need everything that should be out at release. Often that means people release a game well before it should have released and charge full price for a game that is literally incomplete. Great example would be No Man’s Sky which was “complete” (based on their advertisements) maybe 3 years ago(whenever they implemented actual multiplayer finally)? And came out 7 years ago.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

There’s a kind of qualitative difference between a game that was built to be played and later has DLC released for it and a game that is essentially built as a DLC platform. The latter has become extremely common in AAA games and it winds up feeling incomplete because the insertion points for planned DLC are usually quite noticable.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

What evidence do you have that AAA’s are a bursting bubble?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

I agree with that person as long as we’re continuing to use the qualifier “if anything”. AAA studios have thoroughly undiversified themselves and are looking for buyers from the few other companies wealthy enough to afford them, hence Activision’s and Zenimax’s sales to Microsoft. EA, Square Enix, and Ubisoft were all looking for buyers, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Take Two was as well. EA’s got sports and Battlefield and little else. Square Enix has Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest and little else. Ubisoft has Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry and little else. On and on. They spent the last decade not making small bets on new IPs to replace these IPs once their time in the spotlight wanes. It’s the very thing that Phil Spencer was talking about in that leaked e-mail about what he sees as a strength of Game Pass and a weakness of how AAAs chose to respond to the changing market.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

You’re forgetting The Sims, a veritable cash cow for EA, where every tiny add-on costs $15+.

But otherwise, I agree.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Square has final fantasy, dragon quest, kingdom hearts, octopath traveler, forspoken, and a myriad of smaller games you aren’t familiar with including lots of mobile game sales. They’ve got like 15 2023 releases on their Wikipedia. They’re doing fine and don’t belong on this list lol

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

Someone didn‘t understand the meaning of speculative bubble

permalink
report
reply
17 points

Betteridge’s Law of Headlines still applies. Asking that question shows a misunderstanding of what a bubble is and also assumes that’s what’s happening right now is the only thing that will continue to happen into the future, rather than the ebbs and flows that come in any economic conditions. Current economic conditions are affecting a variety of industries right now, not just indie games, which the article acknowledges with regards to layoffs at big AAA studios. The market will only bear X amount of some thing, and spending is slowing, so X has to lower with it. That affects all video games right now, from Fortnite to Shadow Gambit.

permalink
report
reply

Gaming

!gaming@beehaw.org

Create post

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it’s gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming’s sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Community stats

  • 2K

    Monthly active users

  • 2.4K

    Posts

  • 38K

    Comments