I was going to say "the best way to win is to not fight at all". That is, to even avoid having to compete with a Goliath.

Then, I remembered how Runescape became the 2nd most popular MMORPG with 6 million players (1 million of them paying), even though it is inferior in just about every way to WoW. I have no idea why 1 million people would choose to pay to play Runescape over WoW. It isn't even very much cheaper.

I think the David vs Goliath metaphor isn't quite accurate, as indie games aren't 'fighting' with AAA games in terms of there can be only one winner. That probably only applies to sales numbers and the total public exposure/appeal.

But most gamers I know play mainstream games along with whatever niche games they're interested in. With things like the Humble Indie Bundle and sites that generally list indie games I've gotten the feeling that lots of my friends have gotten to play more indie games over the years. And that's just PC I'm talking about - I know that, say, the xbox market has a ton of indie games, but i don't own an xbox so i can't comment

Do indie games get as much money and popularity as AAA titles? No.

Are indie games a growing market right now? I'd say yes, they have been for a while.

So, I think things are looking up for indie devs, even if they aren't "winning" when compared with the AAA companies.

Do indie games get as much money and popularity as AAA titles? No.

No indie games don't make more than AAA games but indie "developers" earn a much bigger slice of the pie. Even casual freelance indies can earn double what a pro XBOX or PS3 dev earns.

No indie games don't make more than AAA games but indie "developers" earn a much bigger slice of the pie. Even casual freelance indies can earn double what a pro XBOX or PS3 dev earns.

I think that comparison is a little disingenuous: every dev in an AAA shop takes home a paycheck at the end of the day, whereas only a small minority of indie devs are making enough to cover their living expenses.

It's the difference between having a day job, and gambling for a living. Sure, the gambler has the potential to become rich overnight - but most of the time he's a hell of a lot more broke than the guy with the day job.

I think Indies are more like Lilliputians rather than David in comparison to Goliaths.

I see no point in fighting against them in their own game. I am working on a web based game that will compete against a eight figure worth company. I know that I can't beat them in their playfield so I am intent on redefining rules instead.

I think Indies should rely on forgotten parts of gaming. As competition is getting harsher and getting a return from 'investment' is being harder, Goliaths favor proven methods as stated above.

Remember good old days of PC gaming, (or even Commodore 64 gaming), there were many games from various genres. Now most of them are deserted. For example , I believe there is still room for a new Broken Sword. Also, thanks to 'primitivity' of smartphones and tablets, retrogaming is on the rise.

buy goliath's game-engine, it 'll be a lot cheaper then creating it yourself.

a faster way to get an engine, but not cheaper. and if too many mods are required, it won't be faster either!

rather than focus on a niche feature, you should probably focus on a niche audience.

actually, the thing to do is focus on a niche MARKET (kinds the same idea as a niche audience). IE build the cool stuff that doesn't have sufficient mass appeal or enough of a proven track record for the big studios to take a chance on.

Or better yet, multiple niche markets.

If the big studios only make FPS's, RPG's, MMO's, and RTS's with the usual themes and settings, that leaves LOTS of other types to be exploited.

These are some of the niche markets i've competed in in the past, compete in in the present, or plan to enter in the near future:

starship flight simulators

realtime wargames

space fighter flight simulators

fantasy RPG's

castle construction simulators

turn based wargames

caveman FPS/RPG/simulators

airship flight simulators

pirate FPS/RPG/simulators

citybuilder games

and probably a few others i can't recall offhand.

the method of selection is pitifully simple:

what do you want to play that's not out there already?

if you want to play it, odds are others will to (hence demand).

if its not out there already, no competition! or no established title to go up against.

I typically see this as trying to find niches that game giants or other popular games do not cover.

This is the key. As an indie developer, your one and only edge over a large corp is also an extremely powerful one, you have a much greater ability to take creative risk and develop something unique.

When you work for a large company, what motivates the vast majority of people is keeping the steady paycheck. Yes, even in a game company filled with creative people, after a few years some of the big company bureaucracy mindset that is so common creeps in for most organizations. You don't want to be the producer who tries something unique, and it fails; even if you keep your job, you may very well get demoted or at least lose a lot of prestige and be known as "the one with that looney idea that flopped and cost us millions!" So, you stick to what is safe; ideas that are far less likely to be home runs or particularly innovative, but are also much less likely to lose lots of money.

As an indie developer you have more room for risk taking, mostly because your company is still relatively small and flexible. You still are worried about your paycheck, but there is a more entrepreneurial feel that gives you much more flexibility.

Then, as a hobbyist developer, you have the most room for risk taking of all. As a hobbyist developer, the cost for you failing is so low (since by definition games aren't your primary source of income, so it is pure opportunity cost you are risking).

The key is coming up with something that has at least some unique feature or innovation and running with it. That doesn't mean you have to create an entirely new genre or paradigm in the way that Ultima created the RPG genre, id Software created 3d fps, EverQuest/WoW for MMORPG, Minecraft for sandbox etc. That is of course awesome, but far more commonly you can still become very successful within a normal genre with a couple innovative features.

In fact, I would ask myself "is my innovation so unique and daring/risky that major studios would avoid it?" The space where they refuse to operate in is exactly the space where you should be operating. This is a space where on the downside, it is more risky and you should expect a lot more projects to fail, but it is also where home runs and serious breakthroughs are more likely.

Innovation does not have to be limited to game design itself (though that is what myself and probably most people here are interested in). It could be a marketing innovation, in much the same way affiliate marketing propelled the success of so many early internet businesses across many industries. It could be an HR innovation, where you discover a very effective way to successfully recruit talented high school or college game developers. It could be a teamwork innovation, where you create a new communication style that significantly enhances team productivity.

Opportunity to take innovative risks is your one and only edge as a hobbyist/indie developer-- milk it!

I think Indies should rely on forgotten parts of gaming. As competition is getting harsher and getting a return from 'investment' is being harder, Goliaths favor proven methods as stated above.

This is a good concept. It makes sense that there are a lot of classic games out there that had great appeal in many aspects and I'm sure some of those aspects have been lost over time. resurrecting the feel of some of the game play they had sounds great.

Legend of Grimlock

Dear Esther

Amnesia:The Dark Descent

Three fairly recent Indy games that basically demonstrated one fact. Goliaths are irrelevant to making a profit, just produce the quality of goods that can sell.