Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens
No, it's reality alright. Indie developers like Dave Gilbert know this. Naturally they would love to see their games being bought and enjoyed by a larger number of people, but naturally that is also tied in to such factors as updated technology, investment in marketing and advertising, and media coverage outside the small online community of gamers who love 'homegrown' games.
|
Although I really like and respect Dave Gilbert, I still think that's only one opinion. The overwhelming majority of 320x200 AGS game developers (who are usually just hobbyists) don't seem to give a shit about mainstream success. And quite frankly, despite the fact that I'm not really interested in most of the games out there, I'm still quite happy that they exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens
I mean, wouldn't you love it if suddenly The New York Times and a couple other high profile sources reviewed your indie game favourably and, because of that, a leading publisher offered to fund you and provide better technology as long as you kept intact your quality for which the media noticed your game in the first place?
|
Isn't this a bit of a circular argument? Indie games, as you imply, are low in quality by default (and you've argued before that technology
is a factor), so why would the media even bother to fund the developers on the basis that they would maintain such (low) quality in the first place?
