MA Thesis

A research into the meaning of indie games, its relation to the mainstream
industry, and the commodification of indie as genre.
2-1-2016

2
1. Introduction 3
2. Defining Indie 5
2.1 What is an Indie? 5
2.2 Defining Indie 6
2.3 Indie Culture Industry 7
2.4 Indie Ideology 8
2.5 Indie Subculture 9
3. Indie VS Mainstream 12
3.1 Mainstream Practice 12
3.2 Digital Distribution 15
3.3 Indie/Infrastructure/Control/Content 16
3.4 Steam 19
3.5 Crowdfunding/Sales/Bundles 21
3.6 Indie Mainstream Convergence 23
4. Indie as Genre 27
4.1 Defining Genre 27
4.2 Evolution of Genre 31
4.3 Simulation and Semiotics 32
4.4 Indie Style? 37
4.5 Nostalgia Factor 38
4.6 Platform Games 39
5. Conclusion 42
Bibliography 44

3
Chapter 1 Introduction
Until recently the structures of marketing, publishing and distribution in the games industry meant
that the most popular games tended to be from the large studios and publishers, but that has
changed. Since 2006 or so the political economies and practices of game making have shifted and the
cultures of game playing have aged, matured and diversified. As independent or ‘indie’ games
become more visible and prominent in the digital game industry and in gaming culture, the idea of
independence becomes increasingly difficult to pin down.
This thesis analyzes the emergence of so-called indie games within the institutional context outlined
above. While often described as games created by an independent developer, without the financial
support of a video game publisher, my aim is first of all to show that there is far more to the notion
of indie than that.
Receiving a lot of praise in the media and selling millions of copies, indie games such as Braid(2008),
Castle Crashers (2008), and Limbo(2010) really put indie on the map. However, the fact that these
games are distributed on digital distribution platforms that are owned by major game corporations
like Sony and Microsoft problematizes their status as indie. As products that are supposed to be
produced, financed, and distributed independently of the 'mainstream' game industry, these indie
games are sold on the same platforms that sell blockbuster titles, and they are generating profits for
the corporate platform owners.
Accordingly, in this thesis I argue that a strict opposition between indie games and mainstream
games is not tenable in this context. Independent developers do not operate outside or in opposition
of the 'mainstream' industry, but instead have become thoroughly intertwined with it.
Research Question
The first part, which will be covered in chapter 2 and 3, is:
What does the notion of an ‘indie’ game entail, how did it emerge, and what are its relations to
the so-called mainstream game industry?
The second part, which will be covered in chapter 4, focuses specifically on genre and reads:
Is indie as genre still a useful semantic concept in academic and popular discourse?
Chapter 2 consists of a theoretical analysis of indie, describing that the term has come to mean many
things. Analogous to the film and music industries, ‘indie’ productions ostensibly provide an
alternative to the mainstream industry and are often associated with creativity, authenticity, and
innovation.
I explain that indie culture is based on a set of anti-authoritarian principles and ideals, which I call the
indie ideology. By using the theory of Hebdige (2002) I will situate indie games production as a
subculture with its own loose network of collaboration and support.
Chapter 3 describes the changes the game industry is going through as a result of the emergence of
multi-million user digital distribution platforms such as Xbox Live Arcade and Steam. Without the
investment required for the physical distribution of a game, these platforms allow independent
developers to reach consumers much more easily and directly. Digital distribution is therefore often
believed to be a democratizer of game development and the driver of an independent movement.
However, I argue that these commercial platforms draw independent developers and their games
back into the corporate structures of the 'mainstream' industry. Platform owners take the role of

4
gatekeepers, luring in independent developers and holding the power to decide which of their games
get published. Moreover, they take a cut of all indie games sold on their platforms. I explain that this
is part of a larger phenomenon where corporate ownership structures are moving from a control of
content to a control of infrastructure.
Just as capitalism facilitates and exploits user-generated content through commercial social media
platforms like Youtube and Facebook, so do the major publishers thrive on the popularity of indie
games through distribution platforms like PSN, XBLA, and Steam. Instead of dictating exactly what
the content on these platforms must be like, the platform owners leave independent developers
relatively free. They do not fully control the indie games or the independent developers; instead they
control the channels on which the indie games are distributed. I will explain how indie is co-opted by
the major game publishers, thanks to the successful marketing and branding of indie games on their
digital distribution platforms.
Chapter 4 will explore in more detail the idea of indie as a genre. Indie has become a highly
marketable brand before all else, and therefore lost its credibility as independent. As an
alternative movement, it fails to oppose dominant capitalist structures because it has become
such an integral part of those structures. Indie has come to stand for something radically different
than independence, as it signifies a cultural genre, with its own discernible aesthetic qualities.
Using the theory of Altman (1999) on film genre I will define a workable definition of genre modified
for videogames. Then by discussing some different approaches to videogame theory, such as
semiotics, simulation, procedurality, and ergodicity, I will attempt to find the most suitable
ontological factor as a basis for videogame genre. As a specific application I use indie platforming
games as an example to investigate the presence of an indie aesthetic, the genealogical evolvement
thereof, and whether indie as genre is tenable in popular and academic discourse.

5
Chapter 2 Defining Indie
2.1 What is an indie?
“Indie is a mindset. It is an approach to making games that is about being personal, and being
honest, and being genuine. Making something that you stand for. That is a reflection of
yourself.”
So says Rami Ismail of well-known Dutch two-man indie developer Vlambeer in the opening of the
2015 documentary film GameLoading: Rise of the Indies.
From around 2006 onward indie gaming has had their strong surge to widespread relevancy. The
political economies and social practices surrounding the art of making games have shifted and
convulsed accounting for a diversification and maturation of the gaming industry as a whole (Simon,
2013: 2). Games on social media platforms and on mobile have become hugely popular. A hugely
pervasive phenomenon turning most of the population into gamers usually designated with the
prefix of causal. Serious games had their smaller spotlight trying to simulate real-world events or
issues as to raise awareness and providing a unique hands on experience with otherwise distant
topics. As well as the increased use of gaming in education; providing a playful way of learning new
skills and expanding ones knowledge.
At the same time the trend of rampant growth in big budget games has continued, commonly
referred to as triple-A titles, these games are analogous to blockbuster movies. As gaming platforms
have become more complex and powerful in the type of material they can present, development
teams have gotten larger to generate all of the art, programming, cinematography, and more. The
console manufacturers (e.g. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo) are central to the web of inter-
dependencies that holds the market in its grip. Manufacturers wanting the exclusive games on their
hardware will bind third-party developers to them with legal contracts. Often resulting in so-called
‘timed exclusives’ meaning the game will be available earlier on one hardware platform, or in
exclusive content and DLC. In some cases the IP of a third-party developer is so profitable that it
warrants a takeover; becoming a first-party developer.
The convergence and consolidation of the industry through takeovers and mergers has left us with an
oligopoly dominated by the hardware manufacturers and several large publishers (e.g. Activision-
Blizzard, EA and Ubisoft). The hegemony of structures in place, concerning marketing, publishing and
distribution, meant that the popular games came from the large studios and publishers. With each
console generation the cost of making triple-A titles has gone up. Consumer expectations continue to
rise in consort with the marketing that presents games as the biggest and best yet – graphical fidelity
and verisimilitude being a big point of focus – which in turn is driven by the ever-ongoing research
into more powerful hardware.
This hierarchical chain of production results in constraints that hamper the creative process of
development and compel a bureaucratic ethos fixated on milestones and certification tests, rather
than the creative autonomy that many developers desire.
The growth of social and mobile games, as well as digital distribution methods, evidence a
pushing against the system in response to constraint, sending game developers moving in
new and innovative directions. The wish for unconstrained creative freedom without oppressive
publisher oversight has spawned many indie companies in the 21st century. Indie games are not a
new phenomenon, they have been around on PC since forever, we just didn’t call them indie games

6
back then. If we look at how most videogames were made in the 20th century, by today’s standards,
we would probably call them indie. In the early days of the videogame industry it wasn’t uncommon
for a single person to manage all the roles needed to create a game.
In recent years, indie games have received widespread attention, primarily because of a number of
smashing indie hits that were available for download on popular distribution platforms such as
PlayStation Network, Xbox Live Arcade, and Steam. These platforms are used by millions of players
and allow the spread of many indie games on the current generation of game consoles, as well as on
PC. They allow game developers to entirely circumvent retailers and in doing so save a lot of
expenses, while at the same time being able to reach a large audience. Through automatic
recommendations and word-of-mouth of the community via social media, indie games have the
potential for viral success. Receiving a lot of praise in the media and selling millions of copies, indie
games such as Braid (2008), Castle Crashers (2008), and Limbo (2010) really put indie on the map.
Although economic success has generated a lot of attention for indie games this is not a driving force
behind indie development. It is the stifling economic pressures to be successful in triple-A
development that indie turns away from; success for indie developers is often synonymous with
being able to make their next game.
2.2 Defining Indie
“Indie is cool. Indie is hip. Indie is smart, chic, and sexy. Indie isn’t pretty, but it gets the job
done. Indie is down-to-earth, the work of tireless blue collar DIY craftsmanship. Indie
is pretentious, a haven for over-inflated egos and introspection with all the depth of a sun-
dried puddle. Indie is big on head-in-the-clouds dreaming, but it crashes and burns in terms
of execution. Indie is mechanically sublime – not a wasted input or animation. Indie is the
future. Indie is stuck in the past.” (Grayson, 2012: no pagination)
This quote taken from an opinion piece on gaming website Rock, Paper, Shotgun shows the inherent
contradictory nature of indie. Since indie is an open-ended concept any single point of view can be
applied to it and reasonably argued. Indie gaming is not a fixed or stable idea, and means different
things depending on where you are and how it is deployed. On the one hand this has to do with the
semantic value of ‘indie’. Indie brings with it a slew of connotations both positive and negative and
even contradictory. “Are we talking about a social movement, an art movement, a cultural scene, a
fad, an ethics, a value orientation, a social identity, an assertion of authority, a cultural politics, an
accident, a new form of capitalism...?” (Simon, 2013, p. 1) Even indie developers themselves are not
sure what it means to be indie. In an interview Rock, Paper, Shotgun Rami Ismail says:
“It has nothing to do with team size. It has nothing to do with money. At some point I think it
has nothing to do with working with partners, whether they’re a publisher or whatever. I
think it’s about this weird sort of thing that’s there, where there are all sorts of people
making things that I run into everywhere.” (Grayson, 2013: no pagination)
This ‘weird sort of thing’ is vague at best and underlines the fact that nobody seems to be quite sure
what it is. This leaves the academic problem of formulating a definition capable of covering a
satisfactory spectrum. This prompts the questions: “of who or what is indie? Where do they come
from? How do they work?” (Simon, 2013: 3) This ‘they’ is heterogeneous and covers different fields
of inquiry. It can pertain to a social identity, to the ideological apparatus, a cultural formation, or a
legal category. The very concept of indie questions from what the independent is independent; from
what does it differs and distinguishes itself and by which means. In the confluence of contradictory
attributions I will discuss the object of indie games mostly as a product of a culture industry and less
as a played piece of entertainment.

7
This is not to say that indie cannot refer to a certain style – this will be discussed in chapter 4. When
talking about indie games the side that is often highlighted in critical and popular expression is the
conditions of production. Indie games are often lauded for being projects done by one or two
passionate developers. In contrast to triple-A games, the specific people who made an indie game
and under what condition gets attention.
When one takes the word independent literally, an indie game is developed, financed, and
distributed entirely outside the 'mainstream' game industry. While there are plenty of indie games
that have no connections at all to the major game publishers and manufacturers in any stage of the
production chain, such as the browser-based games on the Internet, these are not the core of the
indie game landscape. Most of the games that people nowadays think of as indie are the titles that
have been so successful in recent years, like Super Meat Boy (2010), Flower (2009), and Braid.
However, all of these were distributed via platforms that are owned by major publishers; they only
gained such commercial success because they were successfully marketed and branded as indie
games on these platforms. Thus, these games can hardly be called independent.
So what, then, is an indie game exactly? The official rules of the Independent Games Festival provide
an interesting, though really vague, explanation for what type of games might be submitted to the
awards for best indie game of the year: “The Nominating Committee must be confident that the
submitted game was created in the 'indie spirit' by an independent game developer [...]. The
Nominating Committee reserves the right to refuse any game at its sole discretion” (''The Rules -IGF
Main Category''). This statement illustrates the general assumption that an indie game is something
more than just a game created by a developer working independently of corporate publishers. Indie
also refers to a ‘spirit’, something that conventional mainstream games apparently do not possess.
2.3 Indie Culture Industry
Indie is of course not a new concept unique to videogames. The film and music industry have a much
older and more established indie scene with publishers specifically geared towards indie producers.
Something that is only just now taking shape for indie videogames with publishers like Devolver
Digital emphasizing their marketing efforts on digital distribution allowing for lesser known
developers to receive attention. Indie across the different culture industries exhibits similar
characteristics; exceeding one singular criteria by referring to economic, technological, aesthetic, and
cultural factors (Zimmerman, 2002).
While the definition of indie as in “indie gaming” is historically specific to a contemporary movement
in game development, indie or independent media production movements share a few common
traits which permit cross-media comparison that clarifies in some ways some of the inchoate
positions amongst indie gaming’s early adopters. The definition at stake here relates less to isolating
the indie genre, or even asserting the existence of a genre associated with the term at all. Rather, it is
a way to isolate what considerations have helped create and continue to create something that could
call itself a movement — and see itself as “indie” — in the first place. How it has changed since that
first position is secondary to how it all began. Like any movement, however, the particular attributes
it seems to possess are often inconsistent; there is no single indie movement nor indie genre but
rather a set of tendencies regarding how it is described by participants and outsiders.
Martin and Deuze (2009) examine the range of different uses of the term “indie game” in relation the
organization of media industries in the era of convergence. Ultimately they argue that, unlike in
some other cultural fields, independence in games is about marketing, style, and appeals to
authenticity, rather than the actual status of indie games in relation to the mainstream. Lipkin (2013)

8
expands on Martin and Deuze’s observations, arguing that an “indie style” emerges from the
particular political and economic conditions of mid-2000s. With its markers of difference established
(pixelated aesthetics, novel gameplay mechanics, etc.), this style has been easily coopted and
commercialized into a highly marketable genre for the game industry, in a trajectory analogous to
American independent film-making in the 1990s, in the wake of Sundance and Miramax.
Again taken at straight-up denotation indie means independent; independent from a publisher.
Meaning a legal structure such as a privately owned establishment, usually being a sole
proprietorship. Legal structures don’t take into account the ‘spirit’ in which games are made.
Certainly triple-A developers such as Valve are independent; they publish their games on their own
service. This doesn’t mean Valve is viewed as indie, quite the contrary. Indie is as much about
intention and public perception as it is about the economies of production. Certainly this is a slippery
semantic slope where one can go in any direction and still be right to some extent. Consider for
example developer Mojang of Minecraft fame. Started out as a one-man show but now employs
more than fifty people1
. Certainly the recent buy-out by Microsoft for $2.5B2
did much to change the
indie appeal of Mojang.
Indie culture in general derives its defining identity by being different and challenging the dominant
entertainment complex. As linguistics and semiotics teach us; media artifacts gain meaning by being
similar to one thing and being different to another. With indie it becomes an explicit ideological goal
to be different; thus becoming its first defining feature. As much as indie developers want to be
differentiate themselves and provide a better alternative, this alternative is inherently bound to the
original. This is not merely semantic dependence but goes further to determine the socio-political
economies instructing the conditions under which indie games are made.
Essentially, mainstream is contrasted and defined specifically against the “honest” and “creative"
independent culture, which at best says mainstream is everything that is not independent.
Mainstream game development is corporate in nature and capitalist in ethos. While not universally
fairly, the mainstream is characterized as emphasizing profit and popularity over creativity and
artistry. Triple-A games are developed by large teams in numerous different companies with multi-
million dollar budgets. Games are published by large corporate publishers often as both physical
disks in retail stores and digital downloads through platforms like Xbox Live, PlayStation Network, or
Steam.
2.4 Indie Ideology
Indie Game Magazine (About IGM, 2015) defines “indie” itself on its site as “Independent. Self-
motivated. Creative.”3
Nathan Grayson (2012) simultaneously indicates indie, at one time, “stood for
freedom of expression and unbridled experimental spirit,” though at the same time “pretentious.”
This produces a notion of indie media that is, by its nature, a protest against status-quo — at least of
some kind. Assessments of indie games often say much the same. Intermingling with the structural
elements that construct an indie media movement is a strong sense of morality contrasted explicitly
with profiteering.
Kogel (2012) points to a defining “indie ethos” characteristic of the movement that “their game
follows an uncompromised artistic vision” and “some disregard for money, unless they are bordering
on homelessness.” The 2012 documentary film Indie Game: The Movie does well to portray this
1
https://help.mojang.com/customer/portal/articles/331367-employees
2
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2014/09/15/microsoft-minecraft/15658383/
3
http://indiegamemag.com/about/

9
romantic idea of the single independent developer who sacrifices a big part of his social life, just for
the sake of creating an inspiring video game that really shows his personal identity. The movie closely
follows the developers of the popular indie games Braid, Fez (2012), and Super Meat Boy, from the
early stages of development to their anticipation of the first reviews and sales. What becomes clear
from their interviews is that they feel that developing an indie game is a form of self-expression,
resulting in a very personal product that they foremost made for themselves.
As Newman describes, this ideal of the autonomous author is also present in independent music and
movies, since independent artists retain control of the creative process. In turn, this autonomy is
seen as a “guarantee of authenticity” (Newman, 2009: 19). Thus, the indie game is thought of to be
highly authentic, as opposed to mainstream games that are primarily created for maximizing profits.
However, this cult of authorship and personal expression should be highly nuanced. Firstly, that a
game is called indie says very little about the size of the development team. It might be created by a
single person, but there could just as well be an entire team behind it, like in the case of Journey
(2012), which was developed by fourteen people.
While much of what defines indie games depends on ideology and economics, indie media is more
than that. It is equally defined by the existence of a subculture that seeks and supports that media,
certainly at the early stages of development, if not later in the movement. In some ways, the
subculture of fans is a structural necessity to the existence of such a movement.
Furthermore, Guevara-Villalobos explains that “far from being an individual endeavor, *indie game
development] is the collective result of the complex interaction among developers, other industry
actors within the chain of value, and communities (both players and developers)” (2011: 10). Indie
games are not created entirely by one person, but instead their developers share information, ideas,
and source codes through the many events, blogs, and fora dedicated to indie games. They often
keep a close relationship with the user community, releasing early prototype versions of their games
and listening to feedback from the users that play them. So rather than the work of an individual who
puts all his or her expression and creativity into it, the indie game should be considered the result of
a collaborative project. It is a network of co-production that to a large extent involves users.
2.5 Indie Subculture
The indie community is often lauded for its sense of openness; engaging in dialogue with each other
and its audience for mutual benefit. Chris Avellone of developer Obsidian Entertainment states in an
interview with Rock, Paper, Shotgun: “That sense of community and everyone wanting to help out… I
think that’s what’s great about the indie community. I feel like you guys are more willing to share and
help out with things and share experiences. In the traditional publisher model, I feel like there’s that
paranoia. You can’t let any secrets get out. We can’t share any technology.” Tornquist in the same
interview says that “You don’t just run into the developers of Call of Duty or Battlefield. They’re
isolated, in a way.”(Grayson, 2013: no pagination)
Even though both coexist in the same industry space they don’t interact in the same social
community. Again by virtue of being a perceived better alternative to the status quo indie
necessitated some form of peer interaction and support. By carving out a source of cultural capital
indie developers have legitimatized their existence through the construction of an anti-mainstream
cultural formation. Community interaction between developers and indie game enthusiasts serves
multiple interrelated goals; informal networking, sharing work, skill acquirement, production and

10
transference of knowledge, experimentation, testing and feedback, and a base of support, build on
trust, providing motivation.4
Interestingly, these practices were not necessarily originated by instrumental needs subdued to
production but simply as a part of the ethos of game developers, strongly based on collaboration and
community strengthening (Bowen & Deuze: 2009). It was not until myriads of game developers in
precarious conditions, hobbyists, amateur developers, art designers and students met digital
distribution and new platform markets, when communities became an important infrastructure that
now is redefining the experience of work fragmentation and flexible work.
“The internal structure of any particular subculture is characterized by an extreme
orderliness: each part is organically related to other parts and it is through the fit between
them that the subcultural member makes sense of the world.” (Hebdige, 1979: 113,
emphasis added)
Furthermore, developers‘ constant engagement through networking or community events, enable
them to exchange information and knowledge about new technologies, business opportunities,
marketing strategies, as well as advice about outsource work, and how to deal with contractors.
Evidently, these knowledge and information seeks to find cost-effective and profitable methods to
develop and publish games.
Kellee Santiago of indie developer Thatgamecompany states in an interview that: “Indie developers
are an extremely connected and supportive community.” And: “If you’re a new developer, I highly
recommend connecting with other independent developers at local game jams, conferences, and
online. There are so many first-time mistakes that you can avoid by learning from others, but also,
having that group of people who can relate to your problems, give you feedback on your game, and
bounce ideas with provides a really great foundation on which to becoming a successful independent
developer.”5
Guevara-Villalobos explains that “far from being an individual endeavor, *indie game development] is
the collective result of the complex interaction among developers, other industry actors within the
chain of value, and communities (both players and developers)” (2011: 10). Indie games are not
created entirely by one person, but instead their developers share information, ideas, and source
codes through the many events, blogs, and fora dedicated to indie games. Within indie communities
and networks, code sharing is a defining feature of game work. It fulfills different purposes, as it is
both the product of the cultural ethos of the Web and a learning practice. They often keep a close
relationship with the user community, releasing early prototype versions of their games and listening
to feedback from the users that play them. So rather than the work of an individual who puts all his
or her expression and creativity into it, the indie game should be considered the result of a
collaborative project. It is a network of co-production that to a large extent involves users.
As we can see, by interacting with the community, indie developers energize the iterative cycle of
development. Technical and user‘s feedback, testing technologies, ideas and prototypes, or simply
‘playing around’ set up the creative and technical conditions to succeeding in developing a game.
The motives driving community interaction within indie developers are from the most varied nature.
Although there seems to be tangible goals regulating this interaction (information, knowledge, team
building), there is also an emotional need and an identification as ―indie‖ (which in itself is a
4
See Guevara-Villalobos (2011) for a comprehensive research into the relationship between community and
labour.
5
http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/blog/the-insider-scoop-on-indie-game-development-an-interview-with-
thatgamecompanys-kellee-santiago

11
culturally and politically effervescent identity) triggering community interaction. These multiple
rationalities (Ettlinger, 2003) are socially intertwined and reinforced through collaborative work,
moral support and trust building within these communities.
Indie development as a subculture exists as an expressive form; taking the mediated form of
videogames, the expression reveals the tension between the dominant structures of production and
those that position themselves as opposed to that. Traditionally, subcultures identified, and thrived,
of putting themselves in a subordinate position. By positioning in a ruptural manner, the tension
inherent to the ‘other’ creates a grouping around pushing against the ‘normal’ culture. Indie gaming
culture has had a somewhat different approach; the reliance on technological tools and platforms
has shaped much of the cultural expression and reception.
Indie gaming subculture is, as will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter, mostly projected
from the development side. The consumers can recognize indie as a particular expressive form, but
any meaningful adherence to, and identification with ‘indie’ is subsumed by the functioning in
popular culture as a genre nominator. The relation between expression, experience and signification
is not a constant given (Hebdige, 1979: 126). Certainly not all indie developers share the same
ideological grounds for videogame production. The motivation for indie game production provides
similarities – creative freedom, authenticity – but is heterogeneous in its expression. Some
developers such as Galactic Cafe (The Stanley Parable) and Tale of Tales (The Path) put emphasis on
providing meaningful experiences stimulating introspective reflection on themes having bearing on
reality. Whereas other developers such as, Vlambeer and Team Meat, might lean more towards
providing unique enjoyable gameplay inspired by ‘retro’ aesthetics and mechanics. Whether there is
a homological coherence in the expressive forms of indie game development will be discussed
further on in chapter 4.

12
Chapter 3 Indie vs Mainstream
3.1 Mainstream Practice
Within the oligopoly of game development there is a distinction made – and recognized in popular
and critical discourse as an important influencing factor on game development – between three
types of game development companies. First-party developers are companies legally completely
integrated with and developing exclusively for a publisher. Second-party developers are
independent, but take contracts from a publisher to develop a certain game. In the case of being
second-party to a platform holder the developed game will usually be exclusive to that platform.
Lastly third-party developers are independent and thus are not bound to any publishers (Kerr, 2006:
64). This classification already suggests a hierarchy through its semantics which is not coincidental to
the perceived power relations. First-party being closer to the dominant structures of control as
opposed to third-party. Even though becoming a first-party developer means improved economic
stability this is usually at the cost of productional freedom. First- and second-party developers
receive funding from, and are thus dependent on, publishers. This is not to say that third-party
developers have nothing to do with publishers. In order to successfully place a game in the market
most developers have traditionally sought help from a publisher somewhere down the line of
production.
The oligopoly of publishers and platform holders are the financial core of the videogame industry. As
such they take the risk of commercial failure and reap the rewards of success. As these companies
operate on the basis of profit in a culture industry they regularly get attributed a bad reputation in
press and popular opinion. Because publishers are driven by market trends they will regularly order
their first- and second-party developers to produce a title in accordance to those trends, be they a
specific genre, theme, or popular game mechanic. Certainly it is the ‘safe bet’, and thus more
attractive, to publish a sequel, iteration, or game based on popular IP (Julkunen, 2015). This is of
course by no means a guarantee for success; the videogame ‘tie-ins’ based on Hollywood
blockbusters from the 2000s were met with much critical disdain. Seen as quick ‘cash grabs’ these
games were made to coincide their release with the movie they are based on so as to maximize
profits (Kohler, 2013). This practice is emblematic of the gaming industries strive to create or acquire
strong IP’s.
Investing in ‘proven’ titles is more attractive to publishers than trying new and experimental things.
The oligopoly of publishers has taken to developing franchises where a new title is released on a
regular, often yearly, basis. Call of Duty (Activision) and Assassin’s Creed (Ubisoft) are two such
franchises which are met with yearly sales success. An original game that sells really well is nowadays
almost certain to become its own brand, spawning multiple sequels, spin-offs, tie-ins, and even
merchandise. The relative high price of new retail games creates a risk for consumers when buying
games they are not familiar with, so sticking to familiar names often is the most attractive option for
them. The franchising of games is a direct result of the high risk taken by publishers in funding triple-
A games. Licensing of IP and building franchises is symptomatic of the tension between guaranteed
returns of a popular IP and the risk in creating a new IP.
“The games industry, like any creative industry, thrives on new titles to become the next
franchises or hits. Yet, simultaneously they are choking off their supply of new games
available by favoring investments in ‘‘proven’’ titles.” (Martin & Deuze, 2009: 284)
As illustrative of today’s convergence culture (Jenkins, 2008), franchises often release across as many
platforms as possible. Catering to multiple markets (e.g. mobile, casual, console, and PC) reduces the

13
uncertainty of demand. While the scale of projects has steadily increased, companies are now
increasing the scope as well. Doyle (2010) defines economies of scope as ‘economies achieved
through multi-product production’ or variations on existing products. Triple-A Developer and
publisher Blizzard is a tremendous example of employing economies of scale and scope to their
fullest. Known for having a loyal fan base, they employ their IP of StarCraft and WarCraft across
different game franchises and platforms.
As the market grows, the scale and production budgets for games have increased exponentially. The
increase in production budgets, team-sizes and global outsourcing, offshoring and subcontracting
practices creates a higher barrier of entry for independent developers and publishers, which puts
more control over product creation in the hands of large corporate publishers. The industry, much
like other creative industries, thus displays a distinct hourglass structure with a few corporate
hardware manufacturers (Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo) and multinational publishers (such as EA,
THQ, Activision, Ubisoft and Konami) at one end, and a diverse network of thousands of small studios
and service agencies at the other – and very few mid-size companies in between.
One of the main reasons for publishers to go for ‘proven’ titles is the sheer cost to make a triple-A
game. With each generation of gaming consoles size of development teams, timelines and costs have
steadily increased while consumer prices have stayed more or less the same. The biggest budget yet
has been clocked in for GTA V, released in September of 2013, the game approximately cost $266M
to develop6
. As of August 2015 the game has sold 54 million copies7
. GTA V broke a lot of sales
records but it is indicative of the industry that holds on to a few franchises capable of doing so. The
usual suspects such as Call of Duty, FIFA and Assassin’s Creed continue to deliver a new title in the
longstanding franchises each year. And while these franchises are still at the top of the sales charts
this race to the top leaves all competition broken in its wake, unable to make a profit.
Mateos-Garcia et.al. (2010) and Whitson (2013) both point to the unsustainable practice of triple-A
design. The level of competition between blockbuster type products has escalated development
budgets while the market growth is lacking behind. Mateos-Garcia reports that “only 4% of the
games that go into production, and 20% of those which are eventually launched, manage to cover
their costs” (2010: 7). Acclaimed designer Tim Schafer explains:
“With a triple A game, when there’s so much money invested, the risks for a publisher are
huge. The more money you ask for from an investor, the more that you have to give up. No
matter where in the world your publisher is based, they will remove features that could
potentially alienate any users when the stakes are so high.” (Parkin, 2010: no pagination)
Even in the face of these bleak numbers there doesn’t seem to be a massive shift in the dominant
design practices. Change is most evident from publishers and developers tapping into the mobile and
social games market.8
In short the benefit is low development barriers with access to a large user
base at the cost of trying to stand out in an oversaturated marketplace.
Of more interest here is the inherent conflict of profit and creativity between publishers and
developers respectively. The oligopoly of publishers and hardware manufacturers function effectively
as gatekeepers by regulating what does and doesn’t get funded and published. The dominant
ideology for publishers in the triple-A sector consists of developing games featuring high fidelity, high
polish, relative long play through length, and multiple game modes. This also structures the
6
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/grand-theft-auto-v-may-have-cost-266-million-to-develop-and-market-
report/1100-6414188/
7
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/gta-5-ships-54-million-copies-as-take-two-revenue-/1100-6429631/
8
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2015-04-30-what-is-happening-at-konami

14
commercial model of releasing sequels, remakes and downloadable content so as to increase the
value of a successful proven IP.
The dominant ideology is by no means deterministic industry wide as there are many exceptions to
the rule of developers having a constrained creative outlook. More often though publishers want to
emulate success by contracting development within a currently popular genre, using commercially
successful features, mechanics, and/or aesthetics.
“Creativity is *…+ exercised in order to reach the levels of quality of other ‘exemplary’ games
that the developers admire, or in order to introduce a degree of differentiation which will set
the game apart from the competition, while appealing to audience within the same genre.”
(Mateos-Garcia et. al. 2010: 12)
Although iteration, imitation, and sequels of titles are an industry practice, it is a practice informed in
large by consumer behavior. Expectancy patterns of consumers are carefully governed by publishers
with massive marketing budgets. Certainly the re- appropriation of IP guarantees to some extent the
continuing transparency of meaning created by expectancy patterns. Expectancy is determined in
large part by genre, something I will discuss in greater length in the next chapter. By upholding the
genre conventions, a problematic stifling issue of creativity especially in the domain of the military
entertainment complex, the triple-A titles garner to the mainstream masses who have ‘normalized’
the dominant prevailing ideology of the blockbuster.
Subject of a quasi pre-theoretical critique of mainstream games, not least from independent game
developers, in most cases is the imitation and reproduction of successful games (with the multiple
applications of game engines) and the fixation on visual-graphical spectacles. Obviously, this critique
resembles the one that blames Hollywood mainstream films for their standardised, schematic
narrative patterns as well as, particularly in the digital age, for privileging superficial effects at the
cost of narrative complexity and other story values. But feature films and digital games are only
comparable to some degree. It would hardly be appropriate to expect that the slowly emerging
independent games movement has to take the aesthetics of independent films as a role model in
order to constitute and distinguish itself as an alternative practice.
In comparison to other forms of media videogames is a technology driven industry. The console
manufacturers have focused on showing off the technological capabilities of their platform each
generation. Sony and Microsoft have positioned themselves with the Playstation 4 and the Xbox One
as having the superior hardware whereas Nintendo took a different direction with the Wii and Wii U;
catering to the then emerging casual market9
. The renewal and advancement of technology is framed
by Sony, Microsoft and their respective development studios as enhancing the verisimilitude in their
games. The “drive toward naturalistic realism in game design can thus be seen as a central feature of
a technology-driven upgrade culture informing the professional identity of gameworkers.” (Deuze et.
al. 2007: 339)
The relative homogeny of triple-A mechanics and aesthetics has the benefit of creating a flexible
workforce able to fluidly move from project to project. With the growth in scale, videogames are
more and more created by teams constantly changing in size and composition. For example a
character designer is only needed for a certain time to produce all the designs for a game, thereafter
moving onto a different project. The downside is that game studios are locked onto a “self-
referential trajectory of improvement along conventional dimensions of quality- graphical polish and
9
See Juul’s A Casual Revolution (2010) for an indepth discussion concerning the prominence of the casual
market.

15
‘cool features’ in triple A games- instead of encouraging them to explore new genres, or target
emerging platform.” (Mateos-Garcia et.al. 2010: 16)
Mateos-Garcia et. al. reports from interviews with game designers that there is a “degree of
exhaustion with this emphasis on realism.” (2010: 13) The incessant trend of high fidelity images has
hampered the creative design resulting in decreasing returns. The criticism leveled at some games is
that they are more graphical showcase and less game. Those designers that wanted out from the
oppressive triple-A blockbuster ideology went to seek their fortune in casual, social, and indie game
development.
3.2 Digital Distribution
The early 2000s saw the rise of the casual game followed by the popularization of the modern indie
game. The rapid growth of social and mobile gaming (also referred to as ‘casual’) was in part an
answer to the encumbered business of console games which couldn’t support its own weight. Social-
economic factors informed much of the success such as new flexible game design aimed at quick
unfettered playing sessions fitting neatly into the modern lives of previously alienated players10
.
Casual games on hardware people already own and often free of charge meant that these games
formed the new epitome of accessible. Gaming portals of casual games such as Big Fish Games and
Newgrounds provided popular platforms for developers. Games were often made in Flash or HTML5
which provided a low barrier to entry with minimal investment and risk.
While proving that developers can profit with non-console games, developers are discovering that
social and mobile game design is closely imbricated with designing for monetization, marketing, and
advertising needs, rather than an idealized freedom to experiment with fun and social play. As the
casual game market became inhospitable for indie developers they began to search for other
avenues of publishing. Around this time consoles offered for the first time an online platform for
games.
The previous generation of consoles – Microsoft’s Xbox 360 (launched in 2005), Sony’s Playstation 3
and Nintendo’s Wii (both launched in 2006) – introduced the mainstream availability of digital
distribution for videogames. Currently the videogame consoles of Microsoft, Playstation and
Nintendo have their own dedicated digital storefronts through which consumers can buy games. The
PC market due to its open nature has multiple services competing for the biggest share. The most
notable ones are Steam (Valve), Origin (Electronic Arts), Uplay (Ubisoft), and GOG.com (CD Projekt).
With the exception of CD Projekt these companies all started out as developers.
Retailers used to have significant power over publishers because the retailer was the only avenue
available at the time to sell games. The chain of production from developer to consumer was held in
place for a long time because of the interdependencies. Mostly because retailers had control over
which game got sold in store and which didn’t. Bringing a game to digital distribution would
circumvent the traditional retail model based on physical distribution.
10
See Juul’s A Casual Revolution (2010) for an in-depth look at the rise to relevance of the ‘casual’ gamer.

16
Figure 1 Physical distribution system
Consider then that the value system of digital distribution significantly shifts the market profit
towards the developer/publisher. Different sources give different numbers on this. For example
Swain (Irwin, 2008)11
gives 17% for publishers in traditional physical retail which then jumps to 85%
on digital distribution. McCarty et.al. (2011)12
put the numbers a lot closer together at 40% for
physical distribution to 65-70% for digital. Numbers will also vary on a publisher by publisher basis
since some of them have their own digital distribution service such as Origin and Uplay. Regardless,
cutting out the distributor and retailer makes it so that publishers and developers receive a larger
share of revenue per unit sold.
Figuur 2 Digital distribution system
3.3 Indie/Infrastructure/Control/Content
Games made by hobbyists and those that want to practice and share their passion for games have
existed since the early days of the internet. These independently developed games never got the
kind of attention indie games do now. This is not because these games were universally bad or
unimportant. Rather the absence of high-speed internet, making distribution capacity an issue, and a
commodification platform meant these games had little chance of amassing attention. (Lipkin, 2013:
16)
Indie games are in part defined by the reliance on alternative production and distribution structures
compared to mainstream game companies. On the production side, there are, as for other media,
problems of both unfair working conditions in the mainstream being rejected by working
independently, and unequal access to quality tools that follow from that exclusion. The emphasis of
indie developers on digital distribution plays more into a matter of need than want, thus making it a
central feature of the movement. The tools of the mainstream, while expensive, fall far short of the
costs of retail distribution used for mainstream productions.
The World Wide Web has allowed independent producers to sell directly to consumers bypassing the
publishing model in hands of the oligopoly. This benefits indie developers by liberating them from
industry controls and standards over distribution channels. Developers are not forced to conform to
Microsoft’s, Sony’s, or Nintendo’s guidelines and admittance rules if they choose to self-publish or
11
http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/20/games-indie-developers-tech-ebiz-cx_mji_1120indiegames.html
12
https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=V_E5eLFKugC&oi=fnd&pg=PA100&dq=indie+games+barrier+int
egration&ots=SfUOaj4DTV&sig=9TjsTcd4y-A3aqp-UWPZS6OJmY8#v=onepage&q&f=false

17
use alternative digital portals. The bypassing of publishers is perceived as beneficial to unimpeded
design and control of ownership. Kellee Santiago of indie developer Thatgamecompany states in an
interview that: “*T+he egalitarian nature of digital distribution, in which you don’t need to have
special connections to store owners or networks to promote your game, the culture allows for simply
great games to stand out and get the attention they deserve.” 13
One has to wonder though if a game
like SMB would have sold nearly as well were it not published on the XBLA platform.
The introduction of digital distribution for consoles wasn’t without its fair share of hurdles. Jonathan
Blow was very vocal about the people behind XBLA interfering too much in the creative process. In an
interview with Gamasutra Blow says:
"I can live a comfortable life, and just put my game on Steam without that much of a hassle,
or I can have the XBLA business people dick me around and give me asshole contracts that I
need to spend three months negotiating back to somewhere reasonable, that they knew."
(Nutt, 2011)14
Team Meat, the duo behind SMB, were also displeased with the Xbox service.15 Feeling they didn’t
have enough control over their own game on XBLA they decided to exploit a loophole. In a show of
indie spirit they subversively managed to release DLC for SMB for free which was otherwise
impossible on the system. 16 On their website they posted: "It is nice to have the power to totally say
'fuck you' to that system and go our own way."17 Although SMB released through a major publisher,
Microsoft Game Studios, Team Meat wasn’t viewed as ‘selling out’, it is through acts like these and
their outspoken nature that they construct an alternative indie credibility. Credibility founded upon
the rationale of selling out as infiltration of the hegemony.
Even though games like Braid and SMB did surprisingly well on XBLA, the gatekeepers of the previous
console generation were still in play. “Despite the murmurings of an indie revolution on console,
publishing on consoles was still a rather niche suggestion for the majority of indie devs. The Big Three
still had their overly assertive rules and procedures in place, such that only devs who had some real
pulling power (and monetary backing) could afford to get a game on the Xbox 360 or PS3 -- hence
why the vast majority of developers were choosing to stick with the PC.” (Rose, 2013)
It is impossible to single out one defining development as causing the indie rise to fame. Rather it’s
the sum of several factors. I talked about the countermovement to the status quo, the failing of the
console industry, and digital distribution. Lastly as a defining feature is the introduction of affordable,
user-friendly game development tools. Microsoft in an effort to extend their catalogue of games with
more indie titles released the freeware toolset called XNA, released in 2006 and no longer actively
supported since 2013. Together with their Xbox Live Indie Games (XBLIG) service this allowed
developers to self-publish on the Xbox 360. With the introduction of the new console generation this
practice of allowing indie developers to self-publish is continued. In some ways this is a response to
the success of the Steam distribution platform. Mostly it’s an attempt to address the expanding
market and broadening audience demographic by attracting indie developers to them.
13
http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/en_uk/blog/the-insider-scoop-on-indie-game-development-an-interview-
with-thatgamecompanys-kellee-santiago
14
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/126427/Interview_Jonathan_Blow__Xbox_Live_Arcade_A_Pain_In_T
he_Ass_For_Indies.php
15
http://www.destructoid.com/team-meat-probably-won-t-work-with-microsoft-ever-again-211145.phtml
16
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103774-Super-Meat-Boy-Offers-Free-DLC-Through-Loophole
17
http://supermeatboy.com/38/Teh_Internets_/#b

18
However, I argue that independent developers are thriving not despite, but thanks to these major
game corporations. The word ‘indie’ carries not only connotations of creativity, but also of business;
it is used as a brand to lure in consumers. On one hand, digital distribution and a proliferation of
cheap or free middleware allows for a greater diversity of voices in the production of culture.
However, in an industry that is already rapidly rearranging itself to address expanding markets and
broadening audience demographics, the so-called indie alternative model has also become a
playground of fairly typical and mainstream values and practices across studios large and small (Kline,
Dyer-Witheford, & de Peuter, 2003). Digital distribution holds the promise of a democratization of
game development, but indie games that are distributed via PlayStation Network, Xbox Live Arcade,
etc. are not independent; they are reintegrated into the infrastructures of the ‘mainstream’ game
industry.
Independent game developers using a digital platform really have a great deal of autonomy and
artistic freedom during development, and only need to go through an approval process once the
game is practically finished. They choose to distribute their games via these platforms because they
will gain a lot more visibility there than they would otherwise. Rather than selling their games
directly to the consumer, independent developers become part of a company-steered brokerage
system, where platform owners play the role of mediator between aspiring professionals and
potential audiences. As it seems, this system is not a whole lot different from the traditional model of
developing and publishing as previously described. Ironically, independent developers on these
platforms now too have come to depend on the major publishers for the successful marketing and
distribution of their games. The main difference is that the major publishers do not fully control the
content this time, as they do not dictate what games get made or make decisive demands while a
game is still in development. They do however, fully control the infrastructure on which the games
circulate. It is a shift from a control of content to a control of infrastructure. Independent developers
are provided with the tools and platforms to create and distribute their own games. This is part of a
greater logic putting infrastructure before content.
Ironically again, indie credibility can apparently be maintained when the distribution channel of an
indie game is owned by a major, corporate publisher. This shows the flexibility of indie cultures. For a
movement that is supposedly alternative and oppositional to the traditional, mainstream industry,
indie is now more intermingled with it than ever. Newman describes how indie movies and indie
music have seen similar developments. They have become heavily commercialized:
“The fact that cultural products identified as independent are now produced and consumed
under the regime of multinational media conglomerates has not threatened the centrality of
alternativeness to the notion of indie. On the contrary, the discourse of alternativeness
remains central to crafting indie’s appeal to a market ripe for exploitation, a group of
consumers eager for movies, music, and other culture that do not conform to dominant
commercial styles. Satisfying this niche makes the mainstream media into its own
competition and opposition, as it swallows everything profitable in the sphere of cultural
production.” (Newman 17)
Thus, indie has become a powerful brand which lures in a particular segment of consumers. Holding
the promise of innovative gameplay, an eye-catching visual style, and nostalgic game elements, indie
games appeal to the large group of gamers that have become tired with yet another Triple-A sequel.
Indie culture sees itself as alternative, but it has become heavily enmeshed within the dominant
culture. At big digital entertainment expos such as the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) the
platforms of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo have shown a favorable approach towards indie
developers by giving them the big stage and showing of their games. Recognizing that indie is highly
marketable, especially among the ‘hardcore’ game fans and journalists that attend these events, the

19
platform holders try to position themselves into a favorable position regarding indie affiliation
(Gilbert, 2014).18
There is no real contradiction between the practice of consumer capitalism and that of alternative
cultural movements such as indie rock and indie film. After all, records and movies, as well as games,
apparel, posters, and other indie products, are objects in a consumer-driven economy and their
acquisition and ownership bestow status on their owners by giving them a sense that they are
different, members of an elite. Even if this elite configures itself as anti-elite in some respects, it still
seeks its distinction from that which it constructs as mainstream. Although many consider it co-
optation, the practice of countercultural products, styles, and ideas being packaged and sold by
mainstream purveyors has been a staple of Western consumer culture for several decades.
(Newman, 2009: 27)
3.4 Steam
During this period, the PC gaming market also saw some major changes. In 2003, Valve Corporation,
released Steam, which went on to become the biggest digital distribution and multiplayer platform
for PC games. Steam essentially became the home for PC games and indie games in particular.
“They *indie developers+ want to be on Steam because that's what's expected of them. Valve
know this. Developers not on Steam known this. The public knows this as they're the ones
requiring the Steam key. To paint this as anything but wanting the basics for survival, a
necessity of doing business on the PC in 2014 is certainly an interesting angle.” (Fearon,
2014)19
Tommy Refenes of Team Meat says: “The ratio of PC to Xbox sales is double on PC. That's just on
Steam for PC... Other digital distribution sites in no way compare to what Steam is. Steam is a fucking
powerhouse.”20
Due to the immense success of a limited amount of indie titles there have been
many companies trying to replicate those achievements. For a while Steam was seen as the instant
road to success, just get your game onto Steam and you’re golden. Artur Hilger from Polish indie
developer duo Fir&Flams echoes this; “Steam means recognition. Steam means prestige. Steam
means you're not a "no name" anymore. And finally - Steam means sales. Indie game deveoper's
promised land, indeed.”21
It resulted in an exponential amount of indie games trying to get onto
Steam. Due to intense competition, it is increasingly difficult for indie developers to get their game
on elite platforms such as Steam, PSN or XBLA (Deejay, 2011; Pearson, 2010).
Meaning that the volume of indie developers vying for the attention of the similar audience
demographic outpaces the market sustainability. Of course it wasn’t always like this. Until 2012
Steam’s growth was matched with slowly growing catalog of games and that led to gradually
increasing average sales. But it stopped when Valve introduced an easier way for indies — the
snowballing quantity of games (some of them of dubious quality) led to dramatic decrease in average
sales. It’s no longer enough to just launch your game on Steam to sell something. Now you have to
do PR, marketing, support and all the other stuff that only big companies were paying attention to
before.
18
http://www.gamesradar.com/how-sony-redefining-rules-console-exclusives/
19
http://gamasutra.com/blogs/RobertFearon/20140526/218535/Popping_The_Indie_Bubble.php
20
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/37028/
21
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/ArturHilger/20140217/210906/We_have_been_GREENLIT_Here_are_our_
stats_thoughts_and_tips.php

20
Because the flood of games has proven unmanageable for Valve they decided to open a public
curating program to decide which games do and don’t get onto Steam. Introduced in 2012 the
program called Greenlight attempts to democratize the whole selection progress of which game is
good enough to get onto Steam. The games with the most ‘yes’ votes get into the top 100 which then
have a chance of getting selected by Valve. Greenlight is part of a bigger trend on the world wide
web which lets consumers decide if a cultural artifact finds its way into production or onto a
distribution platform. “The rise of Kickstarter, IndieGoGo etc and even Reddit means that users want
the power to have their say. On paper, Greenlight looks like it ticks all the right boxes.”22
Soon
though it became evident that the issue of discoverability wasn’t solved but aggravated.
“There were too many games, too many community members saying too many things, too
few Valve employees to sift through it all. So Valve tore down their stoplight and tossed their
traffic officer into a fire. They started approving games not in trickles, but in truckloads—in
part, honestly, because that's what everyone thought they wanted at the time.”23
In recent years it hasn’t been enough to simply make a good game. In order to generate significant
sales indie games need the marketing and/or critical acclaim to attract views. Tilmann in an
exaggerated fashion writes: “the market is probably 100X more saturated than it was 10 years ago,
and the main challenge these days is just getting noticed.”24
There are still games that become a viral
success seemingly out of nowhere, these are far and few between though. More importantly they
gain traction through often unquantifiable factors which means imitation is by no means a road to
success. “The reality is that Steam isn't a golden goose, Valve don't hand out golden tickets to
success. Games fail on there and they always have.” (Fearon, 2014)25
A survey done by Gamasutra (2014)26
investigating the salary of people working in the gaming
industry for 2014 brought some relevant facts for this thesis. On the indie business they write that:
“Fifty-seven percent of indie game developers (including both solo indies and members of indie
teams) made under $500 in game sales. On the other end of the spectrum, 2 percent made over
$200,000 in game sales.” Big fluctuations seem to dominate this report such as a 49% drop in salary
for solo developers whilst there is a 161% increase for developer salaries from a team. This is
perhaps indicative of a market still very much in flux and trying to find stable ground. Again we have
to remind ourselves that literally anyone could possibly develop and publish a game online. General
consensus in the comments section of this survey is that there have never been more opportunities
to get involved, develop and publish a game. This comes at the cost however of increased
competition.
Although Steam doesn’t represent the whole indie industry it is the most visible and actively used
gaming distribution service of this moment. For that reason I’ll take Steam as the example for indie
sustainability. For a better understanding of the economics I have used Steam Spy to provide me
with the numbers on Steam.27
The active user base on Steam is ~142M. From 2003 to 2015 there are a total of 6618 games released
on Steam. In 2013 there were 579 games released on Steam. In 2014 that was 1841, and in 2015
22
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/08/31/steam-greenlight-discussed/
23
http://steamed.kotaku.com/steam-greenlight-is-still-broken-1685057244
24
http://retronuke.com/pixeljam-studios-interview/
25
http://gamasutra.com/blogs/RobertFearon/20140526/218535/Popping_The_Indie_Bubble.php
26
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2014/09/05/GAMA14_ACG_SalarySurvey_F.pdf
27
Steam Spy extrapolates data from a limited number of user profiles, meaning it is not a 100% correct and has
a margin for error.

21
there have already been 2526 games released and counting. 2014 represents a ~218% increase in
releases over 2013. 2015 as of the time of this writing has a ~37% increase over 2014.28
Since ‘Indie’ is a genre nominator on Steam we can look at the stats solely for the games attributed
this label. Important to note is that most games are represented in more than one genre, meaning a
game can have the ‘indie’ label as well as the ‘adventure’ label. 3468 games of the total 6618 are
indie according to the Steam Spy data. Meaning that ~52% of all games on Steam are in the indie
category. The average price comes to $9.77 for indie games which is $4.14 lower than the average
price in all the other genres excluding free games. The average playtime comes to 04:44 hours which
is ~05:20 hours less than the average in all other genres combined.
The average amount of copies owned for the games with an indie label is 133.740. There are 582
games that have sold more than this average and 2886 less than average, not accounting for games
with insufficient data. Keep in mind this is averages, the mean values would most likely pan out a lot
lower since this is the number of owners of an average game, not an average (mean) number of
owners for all games.
In terms of sales revenue, the top twenty games “generate 80% of the industry revenues while
hundreds of other titles make up the remaining 20%” (Fullerton, 2008, p. 423) and the majority of
console games are economically doomed - "only 4% of the games that go into production, and 20%
of those which are eventually launched, manage to cover their costs" (Mateos-Garcia, Grantham,
Voss, Steinmueller, & Sapsed, 2010, p. 7).
3.5 Crowdfunding/Sales/Bundles
To make the most out of a games financial life a lot of developers and publishers engage in sales.
Sales are great. Right? Well yes and no. They are great for the consumer who gets to play a game at a
lower (often heavily discounted) price than normally would be the case. The Steam sales are the
biggest perpetrator and instigator in this case. Often featuring sales with 75% to 90% off not being
uncommon they provide a big spike in sold units and even at the heavy discount also in revenue. So
sales make money. They allow you to sell to people on the fence, or with less cash. So what could
possibly be bad about this? Well it’s the general devaluing of your product I’m mostly concerned
with.
“Indies now do a huge chunk (if not most) of their business through sales and bundles,
elbowing each other out of the way for the chance to sell their game for a dollar or less. It
just can't last. Bundles used to earn a ton, but they don't anymore. If making pennies a copy
selling your games in 12 packs is the main source of a developer's income, that developer is
going to disappear. Also, all of the bundles and sales encourage users to expect to pay a price
too low to keep us in business. It’s just the same race to the bottom as in the iTunes store,
except this time we were warned, and we did it anyway.”29
Sales on digital distribution platforms such as Steam do this but also the relatively recent rise to
popularity of Humble Bundle does this. Indie Royale is the other website worth mentioning that
offers good ‘value’ deals in the form of a bundle of games. A group of games usually bundled around
the idea of a (more or less vague) theme, concept, or genre are offered at a ‘name your own price’
deal. Often with the option to pay a set amount for some more (usually newer) titles. The specific
outcome this systematic devaluation has is ludically summed up as ‘the pile of shame’. In a survey by
28
All numbers from SteamSpy were gathered on 27-10-2015
29
http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.nl/2014/05/the-indie-bubble-is-popping.html

22
Kotaku titled “We're Buying More PC Games Than We Can Play” they report on the amount of hours
gamers spend on a game. Unsurprisingly they come to the following conclusion: “If you buy games at
full price you are more likely to play games to completion. If you buy lots of games on sale you are
more likely to buy bundles and wait for games to go on sale. If you buy a lot of games you are more
likely to have a larger backlog and not to have played more of the games you purchase.” Ars Technica
reports that close to 40% of all games owned on Steam don’t even get tried once.30
An oversaturation of the market amplified through the idea of a perpetual sale leads to the average
gamer surveyed owning unplayed 18 games in their pile of shame. Even worse are 30% of the gamers
classified as compulsive collectors with a Pile of Shame at least 50 high. Although this is enough
reason for some concern it’s the polarization between the top-end and the low-end of the playtime
that is truly fascinating. In the report from Ars Technica it states:
“If there's one big takeaway from looking at the entirety of our Steam sales and player data,
it's that a few huge ultra-hits are driving the majority of Steam usage. The vast majority of
titles form a "long tail" of relative crumbs. Out of about 2,750 titles we've tracked using our
sampling method, the top 110 sellers represent about half of the individual games registered
to Steam accounts. That's about four percent of the distinct titles, each of which has sold
1.38 million copies or more. This represents about 50 percent of the registered sales on the
service.
By contrast, the bottom 1,000 games, which have sold less than 30,000 copies each,
represent just 1.6 percent of all the registered games on Steam, forming a relatively paltry
"long tail" of sales for relative underperformers. The median game on Steam sells just under
50,000 copies on the service, according to our estimates, while a game in the 25th percentile
has sold about 215,000 copies. The distribution looks pretty much the same when looking at
the number of players rather than the number of owners.” (2014)
The Long Tail theory by Anderson advocates that in markets with infinite storage and equal access of
producers to consumers, a small number of big hits with mass appeal will make the same amount of
money as an almost infinite number of amount of small successes if the costs for distribution and
access are minimal to zero (Anderson, 2006). Although this does suggest more opportunities for the
financial success of a greater amount of titles, it also implies that for each of those smaller titles,
success may need to be redefined to lessened expectations that are more attuned to the goals of
smaller scale or even independent, rather than corporate entities. (Martin & Deuze, 2009: 285)
Concluding that when it comes to finding success in PC gaming, the data shows there's a huge gap
between those top performers and the thousands of also-rans that make up the bottom rungs.
Mainly it’s a battle against obscurity. There is not a definitive answer on what makes a successful
game anymore. If the press doesn’t cover a game the general public won’t be interested in it, which
means no press attention, leading to a downward spiral. Indie success is predicated upon attaining
visibility in an extremely crowded marketplace. (Whitson, 2013: 126)
Consider that Steam grew by 561 games in 2013, added 1,814 in 2014 and seven months into 2015,
there are already 1,592 new games on Steam. Although it’s not close to the levels of the mobile
numbers such as on the iOS and Android app markets indie developers fear its headed in that
direction.
30
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-
games/2/

23
Crowd-funding has gained significant popularity in the last couple of years. Sites such as Kickstarter
offer fans and developers a coming together in a show of support. Again this comes back to the fact
that indie developers usually have limited resources; meaning that crowd funding provides the
economic basis to make certain projects happen. Kickstarter has reported that as of march 2013
more than $100 million had been pledged to gaming projects, giving 1476 new games the green light.
31
Rather than forcing developers to develop projects on the side or push unfinished goods to market
and finish them over time, platforms like Kickstarter enable money to come in up front — a luxury
previously reserved for large established developers and those under patronage of major publishers.
Because funding a game through a site like Kickstarter directly emphasizes the production process, it
reconnects games to production politics through a space that, at least thus far, is impervious to
mainstream cooptation; no one would give Activision money to fund a game given its outstanding
resources, but independence’s primary problem serves here as an advantage. Edwards (2012)
explains, “For players: they get to influence what games get made, and support their favourite
developers directly.” This turns out to be a windfall to successful developers with a huge potential
(Kain, 2012) to compete with existing power structures.
Of interest is the involvement of companies not recognized as ‘indie’ according to popular discourse.
The developer Double Fine also used Kickstarter to great effect generating more than $3 million in
pledges for the game Broken Age. Kickstarter is not the only service being appropriated by AAA
developers/publishers. HumbleBundle was also repeatedly employed by companies such as
Electronic Arts to generate extra revenue. These services generally recognized as being for indies to
generate more capital are thus, to stay with Hebdige, redefined by the dominant group to fit into
their ideological apparatus. Now that these services are ‘commodified’ they are perhaps no longer
about pledging ‘support’ but more about getting the most value.
Publicly-held megapublisher Electronic Arts has ruffled the feathers of a number of indie developers
by launching a bundle of games called the "EA Indie Bundle" via Valve's Steam digital distribution
platform. The bundle contains a selection of titles from independent studios whose games have been
published by EA. However, Twitter has been abuzz with developers noting their distaste at the use of
the word "indie" from a huge corporation like EA, with some accusing the company of trying to cash
in on a grassroots term. The bundle's name once again opened up the old argument of what "indie"
means today, if anything at all.32
3.6 Indie Mainstream Convergence
There is a certain stigma attached to large videogame publishers of being ‘evil’, greedy corporate
entities. Tommy Refenes of Team Meat in Indie Game: The Movie says: “I’m not gonna go work at EA.
*…+ that sounds horrible, that sounds like hell to me.” Why does that sound like hell though? I’m sure
there are a lot of aspiring game developers who would love to find a job at EA. Working at a big
developer/publisher may seem glamorous; getting to work on games you love in a creative
environment of likeminded individuals, traveling to events all over the world and other benefits. Day
to day reality however is of a different nature.
Indie gaming as opposed to other indie media exhibits less of a privileged elitist attitude. From the
production side both indie and triple-A developers endure straining working conditions. The
consumer side is dominated by a culture of perpetual deep discounts. I will elaborate on these points
later; suffice to say for now that both parties are influenced by these industry wide trends.
31
https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/over-100-million-pledged-to-games
32
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/169719/EA_Indie_Bundle_ruffles_feathers.php

24
As projects are scheduled to be released on a specific date – most triple-A titles have been
traditionally scheduled for the holiday season as to maximize sales – they frequently require
developers to engage in ‘crunch’ (unpaid overtime).
Gamasutra reports that developers “spend 13.2 weeks per year, on average, in crunch mode, out of a
standard 52-week calendar year.”33
(Remo, 2010) On average this comes to about five extra eight-
hour, five-day work weeks per year. Effectively making the average game developer’s year consist of
57 working weeks rather than 52. Indie Game: The Movie greatly illustrates, albeit somewhat
romanticized, the effects the ‘crunch’ has on game developers. The movie follows Phil Fish (FEZ),
Tommy Refenes and Edmund McMillen (Super Meat Boy) as their respective games near completion.
They exhibit high levels of stress and anxiety uttering that this is a make it or break it deal. Giving up
their social lives as a sacrifice for making something great. Although these examples are perhaps on
the extreme end they do indicate the amount of pressure that (indie) developers can put on
themselves, or be forced into by way of industry standards.
the ‘work as play’ ethos in most game development houses, a picture emerges of an environment
where the organization of work cannot be seen separately from personal and social issues and
interests, which in turn runs counter to the signaled managerial practice of an almost militarized
systematic division of labor (at least on paper) – a model for productivity based on multiple
milestones and a professional context that can be characterized by increasing corporate pressures to
bring in ever-increasing returns on investments. In this system, the identity of professional game
developers is inseparable from the products of their work
This comes back to the ideological construct of ‘being’ indie. At the root of underground culture is its
separation from the dominant society—its very existence stems from this negation. In independent
music and movies, the ideal of separation is most often figured as autonomy, as the power artists
retain to control their creative process. Autonomy, in turn, is seen as a guarantee of authenticity.
Ironic then that indie is linked both with a generic opposition to the mainstream as well as the
production and, especially, distribution processes that mainstream structure affords. The dominant
hegemonic mass culture in its aggressive capitalist ideology swallows anything and everything
profitable up into the sphere of mass-media production. Through the act of acquiring or partnering
with indie developers they become part of the very thing they oppose. The relentless grind of the
dominant media production complex would see to the commodification of indie, thus neatly fitting
into the excessively homogenized and commercialized field of mass-media. Ending here would mean
that indie gaming is merely a new chapter in the continued iteration of the ‘Kulturindustrie’ to which
Adorno and, by extension, The ‘Frankfurter Schule’ warned us all those years ago. Let’s consider
though that alternative means of media production can at once challenge and perpetuate the
dominant mass-media structures. Newman states that:
“*T+he mainstreaming of indie amplified rather than diminished its salience as a cultural category.
The fact that cultural products identified as independent are now produced and consumed under the
regime of multinational media conglomerates has not threatened the centrality of alternativeness to
the notion of indie. On the contrary, the discourse of alternativeness remains central to crafting
indie's appeal to a market ripe for exploitation, a group of consumers eager for movies, music, and
other culture that do not conform to dominant commercial styles.” (Newman, 2009: 17)
Newman points here to the fact that indie as a meaningful socio-economical designator retains its
ideological values for which it is praised, part of mainstream or not. This signals a phenomenological
33
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/119612/Study_Developers_Claim_13_Weeks_Of_Crunch_Per_Year.
php

25
shift in the ontological state of indie as the opposite of mainstream. Certainly to the general public
this is supported by the fact that some of the bestselling indie titles are published by companies at
the top of the oligopoly. To the indie purist this is perhaps ‘not done’, but one cannot deny the effect
of having the backing from a marketing powerhouse like Microsoft.
Indie then, as the cultural ideological category raised as a social motivator determined to be
different, is highly contradictory at its core. Criticizing the triple-A culture of sequels, homogeny and
general lack of innovation it serves the interests of those selfsame structures by being economically
and politically bound to them.
Indie cinema shares with other kinds of indie culture a basic principle that attempting to appeal to a
mass audience on its own terms entails an unacceptable compromise. Better to struggle serving the
audience that understands you than to give up your autonomy and sell out your integrity (and your
cadre of loyal fans) in exchange for popular success. (Newman, 2009: 20)
Real popularity threatens indie artists' credibility, the status of their work as outsider art, and most of
all the consumer's sense of being apart from the dominant culture.
The indie purist might rebel at the notion that indie games are published by Microsoft but this
doesn’t seem to be the general consensus. The community of admirers can continue to respect indie
artists after they achieve wider success as long as they can strategically rationalize that the newly
popular act has not really sold out—that popularity can be achieved while subversively working in
elements of alternative culture. Indie developers might justify co-option with mainstream because
this act: “challenges the construction of mainstream as anti-indie and demonstrates how
practitioners of alternative media might remake the mainstream in their own image while
maintaining enough of the authenticity and autonomy that they believe distinguish indie culture.”
(Newman, 2009: 22)
At the end of the day games like Braid, Fez, Limbo, and Super Meat boy have all done very well for
themselves and have received high critical acclaim industry wide. As indie gaming matured it became
‘okay’ to make money. Big commercial success of indie games was celebrated, seeing something
‘different’ was greeted with great applause.
As mainstream publishers shift attention to the growing digital marketplaces for mobile devices and
consoles, an important signifier attributed to indie game development increasingly encompasses
mainstream alternatives. It is not merely that the games under production resemble popular stylistic
trends in indie games, such as nostalgia and voxels, but the places where the games would be found
such as Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network, and Steam’s indie tag as well include more and more
games that lack the independence from major publishers central to the intentions of a number of
people who consider themselves indie developers.
Indie and mainstream are categories applicable to both production and reception. As there are indie
studios there are gamers specifically interested in indie games. Considering the continued effacing of
production and distribution practice differences between indie and mainstream this distinction
becomes more and more untenable. Indie studios, due to their success, have increased team sizes,
produce sequels, and use the same online distribution and marketing channels.
When the development of small game titles came to be removed from the intimate personal corners
of the Web and was incorporated into the digital library of Microsoft, indie was:
“codified, made comprehensible, rendered at once public property and profitable
merchandise. In this way, the two forms of incorporation (the semantic/ideological and the
‘real’/commercial) can be said to converge on the commodity form.” (Hebdige, 1979: 96)

26
Hebdige sees the process of recuperation to the mainstream as taking two characteristic forms; that
of the commodity and the ideological form Once a subcultural style gains notoriety and public
attention Indie gaming is often said to come to fame with titles such as Braid, Super Meat Boy, and
Limbo. Of interest is that all three of these titles are distributed by Microsoft Game Studios, besides
PC also featuring on the Xbox Live Arcade platform. These games then have opened up the
amplifying sequence which “invariably ends with the simultaneous diffusion and defusion of the
subcultural style.” (1979: 93) We can see than that big publishers such as Microsoft took a strong
interest in the ‘indie’ development. Providing indie developers with a platform generating a lot more
attention which led to great economic success for these titles. At the same time this seems to be an
ideological struggle; the hegemony trying to bind such powerful discursive concepts as authenticity
and originality back to them.
Certainly this is at odds with my previous remarks that indie retains its socio-political values whilst
co-opted within the economies of mass media. This apparent contradiction is up for debate as this
pertains a rather subjective phenomenological issue into the strength attributed to the diffusion. A
more succinct way of looking at this would be to argue that indie and mainstream are not mutually
exclusive. The act of an indie allying itself with mainstream corporate structures doesn’t detract from
the indie credibility. The anti-mainstream ideology is maintained in an eloquent subversive reach of
mainstream relevance by appearing in all its glory; promoted on the front page of Xbox Live
Marketplace or PlayStation Network. As Newman argues; this doesn’t challenge the construction of
anti-mainstream. “Rather, it challenges the construction of mainstream as anti-indie and
demonstrates how practitioners of alternative media might remake the mainstream in their own
image while maintaining enough of the authenticity and autonomy that they believe distinguish indie
culture.” (2009:22)
The rhetoric attributed to indie remains strong – regardless of the pervasive invasion of mainstream
companies into the indie-style – besides the huge gap in monetary power however there is no real
divorce. There must be then a theoretical distinction between indie as the myth and indie as reality.
Indie in its complex web of socio-political actors trying to prop up an Other as justification for their
subculture fail in actually being all that different.

27
Chapter 4 Indie as Genre
That indie has become just a genre among others is made clear when taking a quick look at the digital
distribution platform Steam, where the category 'Indie' is muffled away between other established
game genres such as 'Adventure', 'Strategy', and 'Racing'. Just like these traditional ones, indie has
become a genre of its own that meets certain expectations. The main difference is that indie for
many gamers is just more 'cool' or 'hip', because it does not follow 'mainstream' conventions. As
discussed previously, major game companies use indie as a brand to promote certain games on their
proprietary owned distribution channels. The fact that indie has become a genre seems a bit
paradoxical, as the term in its broadest sense implies an alternative or opposition to mainstream
conventions. However, there clearly are also conventions of form and content among indie products,
many of which are the direct result of the conditions that created them.
Less formally, popular magazines and websites often have their own—more or less idiosyncratic—
way of dealing with genres. Gamespot.com, a major games website, divides games into more than 30
genres of varying specificity (one genre is “action,” another is “baseball”). While useful for the
purposes of the website, these genres are obviously not derived from any standard principle. For
instance, “driving” implies a game’s theme while “action” implies a more fundamental characteristic.
“*A+ game can simultaneously be classified according to the platform on which it is played
(PC, mobile phone, Xbox), the style of play it affords (multiplayer, networked, or single user,
for instance), the manner in which it positions the player in relation to the game world (first
person, third person, ‘god’), the kind of rules and goals that make up its gameplay (racing
game, action adventure), or its representational aspects (science-fiction, high fantasy, urban
realism). All these possibilities for classification coexist in games, and none are irrelevant, but
we would argue that the style of gameplay on offer is of fundamental significance.” (Carr et
al., 2006: 16. in Arsenault, 2009: 155)
Strategy, role-playing, simulation and action are all based on their gameplay challenges instead of
semantic or syntactic levels. A detailed understanding of game structures, anchored into concepts, is
needed in order to find out if it is possible to achieve commensurable categorisations at all. The
theory of game elements provides a framework that helps in categorising games on the basis of their
interactive traits, i.e. mechanics, or alternatively, on their thematic traits.
Because indie games encompass a rather heterogeneous field of titles it would seem pointless to
lump them all in under one denominator. Is indie as genre then an academically meaningless
container? An umbrella concept designed by the gaming hegemony as marketing material perhaps?
Or is it through the complex interaction of all social-cultural actors – consumers, press, developers –
that indie became a useful classification in popular culture? In order to get closer to answering these
questions let us first find a usable definition of genre itself.
4.1 Defining Genre
Genres have always been difficult to define, often leading to considerable theoretical disagreement
about them. Genres are open-ended and overlapping, and their conventions may change over time.
A classification of genres and their characteristics therefore can never be neutral and undisputed
(Chandler, 1997:1). Multiple scholars have tried their hand at a classification system regarding
videogame genres.34
No matter how comprehensive or eloquent these devised systems are, they
34
[INSERT EXAMPLES]

28
always seem to fall short on some account. This is because a classification enforces a hard distinction
between games, a distinction which is not tenable in today’s extremely heterogeneous landscape.
Philosophically said; there is no objective way of determining which similarities or differences are the
most important. There will always be some game that defies the system by not seeming to fit into
any particular category. This is compounded by the nature of genre theory which constantly tries to
catch up to new cultural phenomena by assigning them a genre denominator.
“Genres, then, are arbitrary. They are analytical constructs imposed on a group of objects in
order to discuss the complexity of their individual differences in a meaningful way.”
(Egenfeldt-Nielsen et.al., 2015: 41)
Arbitrary it may be, genre still fulfills a critical function. When considering popular media like film,
genre classification has long been recognized as an important guide that both fans and producers use
to guide consumption and gauge popularity (and profitability). Genre allows for a commonly
understood system that distinguishes one game or a set of similar games from another. Similarity
here is used tentatively since it is imprecise and based in large on intuition. Genre operates on the
center of the complex web of socio-political actors – consumers, press, distributors – upholding the
implicitly agreed upon conventions which instructs the production process from concept to
marketing. Genres then are powerful speech acts functioning as a recognizable implicit contract
between game and player. Game production by virtue of being a cultural process is based on and
offset against other games, mechanics, ideas, or something else. Meaning production is determined
in part by the socio-historical lineage of a genre.
Genre, as with indie, leaves us with a difficult to pin down concept providing very little internal
coherence. Arsenault calls this the ‘Great Genre illusion’. The illusion is based on the fact that the
criteria for genres operate on different levels of a very different nature. Genres can be based on
aesthetics, mechanics, semantics, syntactic, reception, and technology to just name a few. Bundling
all these disparate concept under the singular ‘genre’ gives them a false impression of unity. (2006:
157) Furthermore, genre across different media platforms cannot be equated without critical
examination. Certainly videogames throw a different spin on things because of the inherent
interactive nature of the medium. Summing it all up Arsenault writes:
“Genre appears to be an imprecise and intuitive concept; it is impervious to rigorous
classification and systematization; it denotes potentially very different phenomena
across media or disciplines; and it is a multifaceted and multidimensional
phenomenon. Those are common to all usages of the concept, and are about the
only thing that all kinds of genres share, whether in literature, linguistics, or film
studies: and they apply to video game genres as well.” (Arsenault, 2009: 159)
In order to instill some order into genre I will now turn towards the genre theory from Altman (1999,
1984). Altman has written one of the most influential books on genre in film titled Film/Genre.
According to Altman, genre is a moving target. Definitions of genre cannot be pinned down from one
singular perspective. Genre is constituted by varying functions and uses of the concept whilst
organized into cyclical periods of time (1999: 84). Meaning different genres flux in and out of use,
usually a causal effect of the popular success of one or more IP’s. As we have seen in the previous
chapter, the dominant network of institutions in videogame production is structured around the idea
of minimizing financial risk through the practices of standardization and franchising. The industrial
and economic context thus favor certain genres because those genre are currently providing
profitable games. Robert Kapsis has argued that a ‘production of culture’ approach is important for
understanding the emergence, perpetuations, and cyclicality of specific genres. Such a political-
economic approach to the mass media reveals “how the complex interorganizational network of

29
production companies, distributors, mass media gatekeepers, and retailers influence the production
and dissemination of a wide range of cultural commodities” (1991: 70).
Besides the industrial and discursive context of cultural production Clearwater names two other
approaches to genre study; ‘formal and aesthetic’ and lastly ‘social meaning and cultural practice’
(2011: 44). The formal and aesthetic approach predominantly focus on the iconography and narrative
structure whereas social meaning and cultural practice focus on the role of the audience and
ideological formation. This is of course but one of many views on the dominant strands within genre
theory. It is helpful though to have different perspectives to genres and categories as they increase
our understanding of how specific formal structures possibly give birth to genre expectations, and
vice versa.
As a result of the ludology versus narratology debate a lot of emphasis has been placed upon the
interactive nature in a strive for game studies legitimacy. Costikyan for example writes that genre in
games “is defined by a shared collection of core mechanics. *…+ it is not based on theme” (2005: no
pagination). The tendency to privilege player activity (or ‘gameplay,’ or ‘interactivity’) limits the
scope of a genre analysis by not taking into account iconography or theme (Clearwater, 2011: 30). I
would rather argue that it is the intersection between game mechanics and theme that defines
genre. Certainly for some games theme and dynamics are easier to keep separate such as puzzle
games. Whereas most open-world games integrate the theme into the multiple-mechanic behavior
system. Being able to fight, shoot, ride, explore, collect and more supports the idea of emergent
gameplay as promoted by a fantasy medieval theme for example.
Besides theme and mechanics a specific game element can also get elevated into the status of genre
determinant. Platforming games are an excellent example; the environmental element of the
platform takes such an important role in the gameplay mechanics that it becomes synonymous with
that type of game. Of course platforms are part of level design which in part is constructed for
interesting gameplay meaning it is primarily a semantic element necessary for effective mechanic use
such as jumping. Before looking closer at the specific genre of ‘platformer’ games let me more clearly
define the effective usage of genre.
Altman distinguishes between four uses of film genres (1994: 14). First, genre can be used as a
blueprint, i.e. a production formula. Second, genre is a label that functions as a tool for marketing.
Third, it functions as a recognizable contract between a genre game and its players. The contract
enables players to articulate and reflect their personal taste in games, and make purchasing decisions
based on it. Fourth, genre refers to a common structure that can be found in a number of games, this
larger set thus constituting a genre.
As with any genre studies, it is always crucial to keep in mind the organizational and institutional
context influenced by the industry majority monetary holders surrounding the cultural production of
media artifacts. All relevant actors will create a discursive and ideological frame around genres
through economic activity, marketing, and community discourse. For videogames some specific
genres will have institutional contexts which differ greatly from others. As discussed previously, indie
genre is set apart in large by the ideological values it exudes. But even more conventional genres
such as sports games have a specific schema of production; yearly releases, focused on high fidelity
simulation, and crucial brand affiliation such as FIFA or NFL.
Altman recognizes as a trend in defining genres that there are roughly two approaches; those
focused on the semantic elements, and those focused on the genre’s fundamental syntax. Instead of
upholding this dichotomy Altman theorizes that this is the necessary dual nature of any generic
corpus. Meaning a stable generic syntax comes from the ontologically bivalent genre; a durable

MA Thesis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (15)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to MA Thesis

Similar to MA Thesis (20)

MA Thesis