Per my article, folks may be confused as to what kind of "indie" i'm talking about.

Here is a prime example:

Barret Meeker of http://www.luckypause.com/ raised 26,000 dollars on Kickstarter.

This is what he had to say in reference to tactics of overuse of 'black friday' and 'pre-sale' of games where no scarcity would be anticipated.

"I'm an indie dev and I'll be trying to 'milk' my game as much as possible, because the more money I can make off of it the more likely I can make a second game, the more likely I can make a second game without doing kickstarter again, the more likely I can keep making my own games as a career. Steam sales are all about milking your game and they offer a lot of guidance on pricing and sales etc. to help you do that."

Here are some thoughts:

Thanks for your commentary mippy.

When the 'indie' flag got big, I was very happy, it felt as if we, collectively had won a spot of power alongside big publishers.

But now that the 'indie' scene has matured, there is a very different sentiment I find. Many developers have abandoned the spirit of truly being beholden to no one, and instead fight tooth and nail for, XBox indie space, steam greenlight space, app store prominence, and recently Kickstarter funding.

When you talk to thee indies they often have all the same unsavory tactic of any big publisher rep you might hope to meet.

And they are flying under the indipendent gamer flag.

Could you link to the exact LuckyPause.com article? I can't find what you are referring to - you just linked to the entire website. On twitter, I thought you were linking to the posts about the copyright dispute when you said, "The slimy underbelly of of modern indie game developers".

Also... uh, why are you calling out an individual by name? That seems rather harsh if you're actually trying to comment on the state of the indie culture.

It's almost like you're saying all AAA publishers are evil jerks, and all indies are selfless artists, and that you are surprised that some rather unknown indie I never heard about is trying to run a business and *gasp* chose an artistic industry to start his business in. Is Louise Comfort Tiffany not an artist, just because he was also running a business?

If you really look into the famous indie developers - our mascots and 'heroes', alot of them are messed up people. We're all imperfect in some way or another - so I'm not quite getting your point. If you link to the article you are commenting on, perhaps it'd be clearer to me.

Servant of the Lord

It's not an article, it was a quote said directly by Barret in an indie game development group on Facebook.

I've called it out by name because it was said by name, in a manner where he seemed perfectly 'OK' to do whatever is required to sell as many units as possible.

You misunderstand, I don't think all AAA publishers are evil jerks; but they are certainly beholden to sales and profits above, pretty much all else.

And I am saying that many modern indies are acting this way as well.

I'm also not stating any love for.. famous indie developers; on the contrary, I feel that indie development is best captured by those not beholden to sales and not famous.

My post however is not commentary on one single article; it is commentary on my recent experience with the industry notably from 2008 to date.


For further reading I'd suggest browsing the climate of Indie game development groups on facebook; it's a lot more sickening than what is normally posted on GameDev.net; this community is still pretty wholesome on the whole.

Hi everyone, this is Barrett Meeker, the guy Raymond mentions in the above comment. I just want to make it clear that he took my statement completely out of context. Raymond said in a discussion thread that putting a game on sale at particular times was "trying to milk an existing concept just trying to generate attention thus more sales, is slimy." I responded using his word "milk" sarcastically, but I guess he didn't understand that.

I was trying to make the point that a developer trying to make as much sales money from the sale of their game as possible isn't "milking" anything. At least for me, I am hoping to make enough from the sale of my first game that I can continue to make games in the future. I love making games and would be thrilled to be able to continue to do so in the future. Doing what you love is not mutually exclusive from making a living. I too would be happy to live in a utopian society where nobody needed to earn money to live on, but since we don't, I am working to make a living doing what I love. Indeed, I wish that everyone is able to do that.

This of course after being asked to remove said content and finding that futile; instead he joins the community just now, downvotes each post and tries to spin an ideal tale. Guess he doesn't wan't the kickstarter backers seeing this in google searches.

Woah woah woah, I never asked you to remove any content. And dude I am just being honest, not spinning any tale.

I think there is something to be said for Indies and their innovation - those games that truly are good are what shine and be successful. Look at Minecraft - millions of units sold, because it's one of the widest known (almost pure) sandbox game. The way the player is immersed in the world feels great, and how the game can be manipulated to create huge adventure maps, mini-games, huge mods, etc, just makes the game that much better.

This is what I feel Indie development really is. What people call Indie now is.. really just big business, on a small level. Business as usual. Get out as much as we can and sell it as fast as we can so we can fill our wallets. Those games are the ones that are force fed and make the market what it is today. It's just too hard to sift through everything for the actual gems. You occasionally see games pop up on Kickstarter that really do look awesome, and you know that just by listening to what the Devs say, and just how much they've already created, that the game will be awesome and will make an impact. Castle Story generated almost 9 times what they were asking for, and the game really looks like I could sink days of gameplay into it.

I feel gameplay innovation is spurred by the real Indie developers out there - those that do this because it's a dream, a passion, an obsession. And what are games without gameplay? Where would we be today without the indie developers who are fueling that innovation?

Essentially what I'm saying is that the world of Indie development as it's seen today is filled with garbage. I don't really call those games. I call those products. Something that's marketed because it won't sell otherwise. True Games are those things that market themselves - a friend of a friend of a friend played it and wasn't seen for a week because he got all of his friends and their friends into it.

"Something that's marketed because it won't sell otherwise."

dat' unbridled truth!

"I'm an indie dev and I'll be trying to 'milk' my game as much as possible, because the more money I can make off of it the more likely I can make a second game, the more likely I can make a second game without doing kickstarter again, the more likely I can keep making my own games as a career. Steam sales are all about milking your game and they offer a lot of guidance on pricing and sales etc. to help you do that."

Today the situation we have, is a saturation, an overpopulation of people using freely availiable, easy to use tools, to produce whatever they can,

Without transparency - if we can only say nice things about them - how can the bad players be driven out? It is perfectly possible for bad guys to dominate an industry -- think finance, military, government, publishing, social media, 'apps', and now indie games. With equity crowdfunding coming next year, it's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

In retrospect, Raymond could have told us specifically what makes Lucky Pause an example of the above, without naming names... on the other hand, doing so has exposed Mr Meeker's vindictive side. He's running spin all over the place, working back channels, getting negative comments removed. Now I notice stuff like "Joy Autumn... recently has been falsely claiming that we don't have the right to use her music anymore." Why the disparaging tone? Why not tell her sorry, it was a misunderstanding, if you really don't want us to use your music then we won't...? Mr Meeker, I believe you have a double standard!

Without tools like Unity, indie developers never had TIME to engage in this kind of nonsense. Now you can grab some 3D content libraries, do a little modeling, make a pretty picture, a trailer video... snarf some music from Soundcloud... put it on Kickstarter, work some hype, and get money. If you ever deliver, it'll be a cookie-cutter product, just another 3D sim. This is very discouraging to folks like me. I've spent my whole life on programming (and art and music) only to discover that superficial bullshit is what sells, and my hard-earned skills are seemingly worthless in this industry. Welcome to the new Gilded Age.

No..., you sell games, because you deserve to be paid for use of the product you created

It is always the case in the free market.

Tom Novelli, I've spent my whole life making 3D art, these too have been hard-earned skills. I don't see how the possibility of my success harms you in any way, or why I wouldn't deserve success just as much as you or any other video game developer that has worked hard on their craft and on their game.

Without transparency - if we can only say nice things about them - how can the bad players be driven out? It is perfectly possible for bad guys to dominate an industry -- think finance, military, government, publishing, social media, 'apps', and now indie games. With equity crowdfunding coming next year, it's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

In retrospect, Raymond could have told us specifically what makes Lucky Pause an example of the above, without naming names... on the other hand, doing so has exposed Mr Meeker's vindictive side. He's running spin all over the place, working back channels, getting negative comments removed. Now I notice stuff like "Joy Autumn... recently has been falsely claiming that we don't have the right to use her music anymore." Why the disparaging tone? Why not tell her sorry, it was a misunderstanding, if you really don't want us to use your music then we won't...? Mr Meeker, I believe you have a double standard!

Without tools like Unity, indie developers never had TIME to engage in this kind of nonsense. Now you can grab some 3D content libraries, do a little modeling, make a pretty picture, a trailer video... snarf some music from Soundcloud... put it on Kickstarter, work some hype, and get money. If you ever deliver, it'll be a cookie-cutter product, just another 3D sim. This is very discouraging to folks like me. I've spent my whole life on programming (and art and music) only to discover that superficial bullshit is what sells, and my hard-earned skills are seemingly worthless in this industry. Welcome to the new Gilded Age.

Barrett, you alone are not the problem, it's the tools and climate that favor the superficial. It's the mania that gives you 26 grand up front based on your AAA cred without any solo gamedev track record at all. Sorry to make an example of you in particular, though. I don't know you. I can only guess that you're in over your head on the programming side (like some other artist-led projects I know) and maybe you don't even realize that your "control the message" PR strategy is not cool... you are just antagonizing the wrong kind of people :D

Want to see a blatant example of 'indie slime'? I just noticed that one of the headliners in the latest bundle-which-shall-not-be-named is a sleazy pay-to-win game... talk about milking it. Milking kids. Deplorable.

Anyway, let's not dwell on Barrett and his possible motivations... those details will probably come out over the next year or so. Meanwhile, what do we know? 1) People are using canned game engines, and 2) Certain people like Schafer and Schilling have used their fame to obtain funding and exposure. These shortcuts to 'success' are feeding the gold-rush mentality, causing an unusual proportion of developers to act like douchebags.

The big question is, can we foresee how all the repercussions will play out? And, how can you get through this chaos if you're a programmer? artist? new blood? old guard?

People are using canned game engines

Ehmm...so? What are you talking about? The technology&tools that are used to make a game are the development team's concern, not the players'. Having a mature codebase and tools to facilitate your development so you can focus on the important things like art, story, characters, gameplay etc is a *good* thing. By the same token, we should complain when C came out, because it made things way "too easy" compared to the..."magic" of writing everything in assembly.

You can implement a very original and deep game in Unity, just as you can implement a boring one in your own C++ engine, and vice versa. The only reason to see the existence of more and better tools as a *bad* thing is because you don't feel so "special" anymore by merely putting together a game. Well...

Also, having "sales" or "free weekends" and similar things does not mean that "all you care is money". Is it all black or white? You made the game, you poured your creativity into it, now you're selling it. If you're *really* not interested in money, then just release it for free. If you are, what's wrong with using some methods to try and pitch it to a larger audience? What, you're a "sellout" because you had a "free weekend" so maybe more people would try out your game, see if it's good, and maybe generate more word of mouth and result in more people buying and *playing* your game? Please!

C is not a game engine. Neither is OpenGL or .NET or Qt. But you cross a line into canned gameplay when you use Unity, Unreal, Box2D, etc. Then it requires a determined act of will to rise above the ocean of crap (including all the uninspired AAA titles which still have you completely outclassed in terms of visual content). If you're a good programmer it's actually less work to throw away the canned engines and roll your own. No you probably won't make a 3D game for Ludum Dare that way but that's irrelevant.

And BTW, I think a good programmer does need enough Assembly experience to have an intuitive feel for the performance limitations of fundamental algorithms, and the sense not to use Assembly in their games!

Re: sales, freebies, bundles, app stores... The problem isn't making money, it's that all these moneygrubbers have made it impossible to make more than $2 an hour except by slapping together cookie-cutter games using engines and gimmicks. Cheap crap from China indies! These moneygrubbing assholes have ruined it for the rest of us.

If the market is being served by what game makers using Unity et al are producing then the market for those games will continue to grow. If, however, this "goldrush" mentality is evidence of a bubble, then the market will correct. There seems to be 2 separate arguments going on here. 1) Games are too easy to make, resulting in crappy games and 2) Some people are acting like assholes.

1 is purely a question of what the market will bear, and if the market eventually decides that shitty canned games aren't what they want anymore, those dollars will flow elsewhere, There will be a market correction. In this case, at least, capitalism will eventually work, if you have the patience to let it do its thing. After all, it's not like we can have the government regulate the industry so that people can only produce and purchase "good" games using difficult-to-use tools and processes to preserve some kind of mythical purity. What bureau would they set up to provide the official definition of "good"?

As for 2, I think we can all, every one of us, agree that people shouldn't act like assholes for any reason. You're supposed to learn that particular rule by the time you're in kindergarten, and it's a good rule to follow.

"After all, it's not like we can have the government regulate the industry so that people can only produce and purchase "good" games using difficult-to-use tools and processes to preserve some kind of mythical purity. "

"I think we can all, every one of us, agree that people shouldn't act like assholes for any reason."

>First states not trying to adhere to mythical standard of purity.

>Then suggests adhering to mythical standard of purity.

Wait, wat?

Suppose I can weigh in on this one, since I have feelings on both sides of the fence.

1) I too feel that the industry ( not just indies ) has taken a turn for the worse. I do not think the people of old ( game developers ) were anymore reasonable or noble than the ones we have now. Honestly, they just didnt know how to make the money like they do now. So, has the expansion and ease to obtain powerful game making tools made the market worse? Meh, I think it only amplified the problem. The real issue is the people who continue to buy it. Shitty game developers wouldnt be making millions if we, the people, didnt let them. Sadly, todays target market is 13 year olds who have no real voice and only care for NEW NEW NEW! Mommy and daddy do not want to deal with the crying kid so they give them whatever they want so long as it doesnt cost them an arm and a leg. Can you fault the developers for preying on this? not really. Is it wrong to some degree? sure, if that is what you believe, but as many have already stated in business there is a very small line that defines what is wrong and what makes money.

2) I think EDI's original point was that he was disgusted with how shit developers are able to make a decent pay off of slapping something together. He used meeker as an example and quoted some of the things he said. Whether those had any validity or were taken out of context is really here nor there. I can no more prove what he meant than I can make the sun rise and fall at my will. ( hm.. i can do that in my game so maybe i can!! AHAHA j/k ) I have to agree on the point that it makes me sick to see simple games making so much money. I have put hours and hours into make RuinValor something unique and fresh, only to see another cookie cuter game come out and make millions. It makes me question "Why even bother making something fresh and new when all I have to do is making x and y and sell it 13 year olds to win!". JTip make a great point... at some point you have to say, "is this business or just and art form". Often, what makes money is not what pleases you mentally/spiritually. Often we must find that line and make some sacrifices so that what we do make provides us with both. Very rarely do we get to make what we want and have people love us for it! That includes throwing money at you for it! In most cases some of the finest art we know of today was only ever really appreciated until the artist was dead.

3) So what is the point? Do new tools that make game making easier create a shittier market? Should we hate those people who attempt to exploit a flawed and exploitable system? For me, I can say that I hate those who do exploit the system but I do not judge them for what they do. I, personally, will not lower myself to that standard despite know that I could fairly easily do so. Does this mean that I might miss out on making an easy million? Perhaps, but at least I know that when and if I ever do make it big I will have done it the right way. ( consider the use of the word "right" is subjective in this sense and I am only speaking from my perspective. I fully realize that somebody with a different viewpoint could consider making the $$$$ as being right and that having a sense of morality as being the poor choice ) Lastly, the market certainly has taken a turn for the worse, but it is up to use to maintain our composure and continue to make quality games. It might be the less appealing road but it is certainly the more rewarding.

As for meeker, I think this could be a great lesson in PR. Sadly, people will take what we say out of context for almost any and all reasons. This is why most companies do not allow their big wigs to speak unless they go through some form of a PR person. Ensuring liabilities and lawsuits are limited! That said, i appreciate your honesty and expressing how you feel. I am very outspoken myself and can see myself in a similar situation at some point down the road.

Why was this article accepted?

There are indeed smaller game developers that try to make a living creating eg. apps. If people like their games, they will buy them. Conversely, if they didn't - they wouldn't. That's Economics 101.

Are game developers not allowed to try to work 9 to 5, even if that game isn't a masterpiece?

What is this, kindergarten?

And what about using an easier/simpler toolbox is bad, in ANY situation?

What happened here?

Just in case someone are still conflicted - there is "bad" everywhere, such as in metal (the musical genre).

That doesn't mean bands can't put out the music they created. And guess what, they probably liked the music.

They put it out there, because opinions are like the behind - split.

I get it, this is an opinion piece, but GameDev is above this attack on other peoples tastes.

Hold up a minute Kaptein... imagine you worked 9-5 for a year, coding and polishing YOUR game -- and maybe you tried some 'tools' but ultimately found them irritating and made a fresh start at a lower level -- and then nobody buys your game until you drop the price to $1, or FREE, if anyone even notices it, because of all the COOKIE CUTTER GAMES.

Players aren't happy about it, devs aren't happy, even the new devs lovin' Unity aren't gonna be happy when they realize that every wannabe gamedev is doing the same thing as them.

Hold up a minute Kaptein... imagine you worked 9-5 for a year, coding and polishing YOUR game -- and maybe you tried some 'tools' but ultimately found them irritating and made a fresh start at a lower level -- and then nobody buys your game until you drop the price to $1, or FREE, if anyone even notices it, because of all the COOKIE CUTTER GAMES.

Players aren't happy about it, devs aren't happy, even the new devs lovin' Unity aren't gonna be happy when they realize that every wannabe gamedev is doing the same thing as them.

For the record, I thought this was an article, so I'm sorry about that...

Anyways, I see your point. But is this provably a problem?

If it is, then maybe that could be a debate itself, otherwise, I have to say I just didn't like the overall tone of the original er.. article

I think even if gaming is currently overall hurting because of the lowered barrier to game development, I trust that there will always be games that are worth more than $1. Of course, in the case of games that are incredibly popular, they could leverage prices as they see fit. You can't argue that Angry Birds is anything short of a really good and polished game, yet it costs almost nothing.

They also created the Pigs machine (can't remember the exact name) game, which also was very fun to play.

Again, there is that elephant in the room though, the red line between any other industry and this. Such as other types of content creation (music/video), and so it may just boil down to availability (platforms) and visibility (coverage).

Content is so accessible now that we are swimming in it. I won't pretend I know all the factors at play, but, take YouTube. Video content as a service. I subscribe to the channels I like, and that's pretty much my entire YouTube experience, with the occasional link from friends, just to see the new 'thing'. But if I wanted to I could watch just about anything, right now.

While producing a video game could take years, other content creation takes weeks or months, rarely years. A youtube video is typically watched only once, while music is something you can enjoy for weeks. Last, games are something you typically experience once, and then never again. It could take hours or just a few days to complete. So, I can agree to that games are undervalued severely in many cases. What or why, I couldn't tell you. Perhaps it is as you say, simply to get sales.

But I think the hardest part is just to get coverage - ANY coverage.

And that could very well be the root of the problem, and the difference between music & video content vs games.

For music you have services such as Spotify & Wimp. For videos you have youtube, and many others.

For video games, what do you have? The closest seems to be Steam Greenlight.

I find it very interesting that many indies I encounter today, are completely happy if not eccstatic with the hold that services like Steam Greenlight (and before it steam, proper), Microsoft XBLA, Apple, etc. have over them.

It's pretty much like the old days where you'd have to convince a publisher or other distribution outlet; and that's what many of us who started developing indie games didn't want.

It's sadly all become another big 'institution'.

Hold up a minute Kaptein... imagine you worked 9-5 for a year, coding and polishing YOUR game -- and maybe you tried some 'tools' but ultimately found them irritating and made a fresh start at a lower level -- and then nobody buys your game until you drop the price to $1, or FREE, if anyone even notices it, because of all the COOKIE CUTTER GAMES.

Players aren't happy about it, devs aren't happy, even the new devs lovin' Unity aren't gonna be happy when they realize that every wannabe gamedev is doing the same thing as them.

What games do you mean when you say 'cookie cutter games' ? If your game isn't getting noticed over these cookie cutter games maybe people actually prefer these games over yours. Have you made a game that got great reviews but didn't sell?

Hold up a minute Kaptein... imagine you worked 9-5 for a year, coding and polishing YOUR game -- and maybe you tried some 'tools' but ultimately found them irritating and made a fresh start at a lower level -- and then nobody buys your game until you drop the price to $1, or FREE, if anyone even notices it, because of all the COOKIE CUTTER GAMES.

Players aren't happy about it, devs aren't happy, even the new devs lovin' Unity aren't gonna be happy when they realize that every wannabe gamedev is doing the same thing as them.

What games do you mean when you say 'cookie cutter games' ? If your game isn't getting noticed over these cookie cutter games maybe people actually prefer these games over yours.

I agree and disagree with that statement for these reasons.

Yes becuase consumers are going to buy and like whatever they want. No becuase some 'cookie cutter games' are being designed with the mentality of copying other games to an extreme degree. I'll be honest and say I don't know if game devs that copy many 'original' game ideas actually profit. But personally I find content creators who just want to copy other peoples ideas and call it their own to be frauds.

You can always borrow ideas but when you don't come up with anything original and you are profiting on a game where you just changed things up only a little, then I feel you don't have a leg to stand on. And I'm talking about most aspects of development (art, music, game design, the games theme) This is all of course subjective to each person, but in my book that's a cookie cutter game.

That why I don't understand why some folks on here say ideas are a dime a dozen. Which again is all opinion based. But to me the best analogy would be the reception of a singer to the public. Some people think that screaming vocals sound terrible and prefer something cleaner, and vice versa.

At the end of the day, I'm just going to make the game that I want becuase it pleases me to see my creation on screen. And hope others find interest in too, becuase they see what I see in the product and know it was a labor of passion.

Looking at the late 70s and 80s, and indy developer was a lone programmer with usually limited art skills or little ability to translate his skills to the screen thru a game.

Hold up a minute Kaptein... imagine you worked 9-5 for a year, coding and polishing YOUR game -- and maybe you tried some 'tools' but ultimately found them irritating and made a fresh start at a lower level -- and then nobody buys your game until you drop the price to $1, or FREE, if anyone even notices it, because of all the COOKIE CUTTER GAMES.

What are these "cookie cutter" games that are so successful that overshadow the "good" indie games? Can you give some examples? Sure, there is a lot of crap out there, mostly in the mobile game market, but just because someone posted his crappy game in Google Play doesn't mean anything...

Also, this talk about "tools" and "engines" is not only completely useless, unless anyone thinks there's a way to..."outlaw" those, but also quite ignorant, since "engines" that were offerring a higher level of abstraction and made the creation of some type of games easier existed since day one. Most of Lucas Arts classic adventure games were made with SCUMM. Even before that, Infocom was using Z-machine for its text adventure games since 1979. I'm sorry, but the gamer doesn't care one bit whether you made the game in Unity/UDK/Source SDK or you painfully typed every single line of code in C. You don't get extra points for the latter, neither does it make your game "better".

Engines, middleware and tools aren't going anywhere, nor should they, so as I said this is all quite pointless. All we can do, if we are so inclined, is push for the creation of better tools and engines that give more options to the developer without having him abusing the engine in case he wants to do something "different".

Fine, here's some examples of cookie-cutter.......Solitaire and Mahjong. The whole Angry Birds genre. Platformers with 2D rigid body physics. Damn near every FPS since Wolfenstein 3D. Maybe even your beloved Infocom/Lucas games. They're not all BAD games, but let's put it this way: I have better things to do than play more games made with the same engines.

The engine IS the game.

There's nothing wrong with using an engine/library/VM for portability reasons. Using its default gameplay/mechanics, though, that's just lazy. Someone who's never written a game from scratch is gonna have a hard time architecting a decent game on top of someone else's game. I'm not gonna get their hopes up. If they're unwilling or unable to acquire the necessary math, engineering, and coding skills, then tools are not going to help them.

Oh, so when you say "cookie-cutter games", you mean games like Trine, Braid or Rochard, or adventures like Sam&Max, Day of the Tentacle, Monkey Island and Fate of Atlantis? Well, if so, give me more of those please!

I won't comment on the "engine IS the game"...that is just patently wrong, all you have to do is take a look at a list of all the games made with UE3 to see they cover all sorts of genre, gameplay mechanics and visual style. Unless you think that, say, Mirror's Edge, XCOM, Dishonored, Mortal Kombat, Antichamber and Gears of War have many things in common...

We were talking about the indie world, and you list a bunch of AAA titles. Cookie-cutter by definition! (with big enough budgets for heavily customized gameplay/mechanics)

Do you really want a Braid 2?

I'm...starting to think you're a bit confused about what most game engines *are* or what they do...For example, Unity has no "default gameplay mechanics" which you keep mentioning...it just offers services like rendering, input, networking, physics, scripting and a GUI Editor. You can just as easily make a Unity game that plays like a Doom-like FPS, or one that plays like Wizardry, or an isometric RTS, or a 2D platformer, or an adventure, or racing, or a puzzle game. Just what on earth are these "default gameplay mechanics" you keep speaking of? And I'm also lost on what exactly are the games that you consider to be...non "cookie cutter"?

Non cookie cutter, hmmm... that's a short list. GTA 1. Tetris. Liero. Zelda. Another World. Populus. Elite. Metroid. Whatever the first decent RTS was. XCOM 1. [Edit:] You get the idea. We could surely think of some better examples that weren't genre-defining but still had enough work put into them to stand above the crowd. On the AAA end, there's GTA 5. On the indie end... Canabalt, Dino Run, Gone Home (yes, made with an engine), also the old Star Control games, and yes, your Lucas games :)

Are you trying to say the default mechanic of Unity is not a 3D simulation? Then explain why there are thousands of those and not much else.

First of all, all of these games you mentioned can be made in Unity just fine. I'm not really sure what you mean by "3D simulation" or why you think that's "restrictive"...yes, it supports 3D graphics, which is to say that if you want 2D or "2.5D" graphics you'll just have to restrict yourself to a plane and orthographic projection (though it does currently have direct 2D support too)...and yes it supports physics too, which you can, if you want, completely ignore and script your own movement/behaviors entirely, or use only part of the physics, implement "arcade-y" physics, and anything in between.

Second of all, so your examples of "non cookie cutter" games were basically the classic games that spawned entire genres or sub-genres. I mean, you didn't even mention a specific RTS, you just said..."the *first* decent RTS"...So yeah, if by "cookie cutter" you mean a game that can be classified into an existing genre and doesn't create a new one on its own, then yes, most games are that way. I guess Godfather is, by that token, a pretty "cookie cutter" film too, since the "mafia movie" subgenre existed long before it?

New genres aren't born every day you know. And the novelty of a game's story,dialogue, characters, theme,gameplay and art has very little to do with the engine it's implemented in. All this discussion is kind of embarassing, really...we're supposed to be people that are interested in technology...and some of us seem to be complaining because technology advanced and became more accessible, instead of staying in the exact same place it was when *we* first started? Does that make any sense? Like all the people that went rioting way back when adventure games stopped being text-only and got rudimentary static graphics, and then later, oh the horror, got graphical interface instead of text parsing, thus they were not "real" adventure games? What is that, being pissed off because more people came into the field, more tools and new technologies facilitate the development process, and we no longer feel we are in some imaginary "inner circle" of "initiates" any more? Geez.

But if I don't want to use the 3D and physics, why bother with all Unity baggage? (I don't)

Did you see my edit? I'm not trying to draw a bright line. The grey area is interesting -- the games that did something special with an existing genre or mechanic. I mean, that's basically the only hope for making a new game worth playing.

Wait so when said this:

Hold up a minute Kaptein... imagine you worked 9-5 for a year, coding and polishing YOUR game -- and maybe you tried some 'tools' but ultimately found them irritating and made a fresh start at a lower level -- and then nobody buys your game until you drop the price to $1, or FREE, if anyone even notices it, because of all the COOKIE CUTTER GAMES.

Players aren't happy about it, devs aren't happy, even the new devs lovin' Unity aren't gonna be happy when they realize that every wannabe gamedev is doing the same thing as them.

You were complaining about "Damn near every FPS since Wolfenstein 3D." ? If you seriously think players aren't happy to get new FPS your totally out of touch.

Players love what you apparently call "Cookie Cutter" games - just look at GTA5, and Skyrim. I think a Braid 2 could be awesome. I want more RTS.

"Are you trying to say the default mechanic of Unity is not a 3D simulation?" - Even if your coding a 3D game making your own engine you use Dx or openGL libraries, and you'll probably use PhysicX or havoc. So even if your writing your own 3D engine the '3d simulation' stuff is written for you already.

Also I feel like your barking up the wrong tree by saying game engines cause cookie cutter games, as you pointed out Gone Home, a game that wouldn't have existed without them being able to start from a game engine. Then on the flip side look at Battlefield 4, brand new engine but pretty much the same mechanics. Most players want remakes, updates, sequals to their favorite games, the engines are just tools to do that. Engines will have a small impact on certain things about the game but not in the mechanics, only in the small things like maybe one engine handles dynamic lights a bit better so you can have a couple more, maybe one engine has scaleform integrated so the UI is fancier, little things. The mechanics are all still coded. I think I'm up to about 40,000 lines of code for my UDK game.

Thanks for the thought provoking essay.

Obviously different people have various sets of values.

It's good to know that there are still some developers who care about other important things besides profitability. As overhead expenses mount in game development then that becomes increasingly difficult to do, especially if the particular corporate culture takes a life of its own.

Fine, here's some examples of cookie-cutter.......Solitaire and Mahjong. The whole Angry Birds genre. Platformers with 2D rigid body physics. Damn near every FPS since Wolfenstein 3D. Maybe even your beloved Infocom/Lucas games. They're not all BAD games, but let's put it this way: I have better things to do than play more games made with the same engines.

The engine IS the game.

There's nothing wrong with using an engine/library/VM for portability reasons. Using its default gameplay/mechanics, though, that's just lazy. Someone who's never written a game from scratch is gonna have a hard time architecting a decent game on top of someone else's game. I'm not gonna get their hopes up. If they're unwilling or unable to acquire the necessary math, engineering, and coding skills, then tools are not going to help them.

In real world possibilities and practicality, the engine does not have to be the game. In fact, the better engines allow for distinct boundaries between engine source code and game source code.

@BarrettMeeker,

"If you seriously think players aren't happy to get new FPS your totally out of touch."

Oh hell, I even like some FPSes, even if they are cookie cutter. What I do not like are crappy little FPSes that literally make me feel like puking (something no plane or boat or decent FPS has ever accomplished) and aren't much fun to play.

"Also I feel like your barking up the wrong tree by saying game engines cause cookie cutter games..."

You're right. It's caused by the idea that someone can just recycle a game idea, slap together an engine and some models, write no code, and make $20,000 or $200,000 or millions.

"I think I'm up to about 40,000 lines of code for my UDK game."

Well then that ought to be interesting... best of luck, man.