I've just realized that Doom 1 was an indie game

I knew this for a long time, but somehow this hadn't clicked in my mind before. No indie game had such an impact on the industry ever.

Orchid87 said:

I knew this for a long time, but somehow this hadn't clicked in my mind before. No indie game had such an impact on the industry ever.

Well,the programmers were talented,so...

we're not sinking, we're craaaashing!!!!

It was released as shareware, sure, but IMO it wouldn't fit most definitions for "indie", even at the time. By that logic, then most Apogee and Epic Megagames titles were "indie". Maybe they actually were, if compared to a big-name company like e.g. Origin or Sierra, but I think there's an abuse of terms going on here. I would identify something like Captain Comic as indie (original MS-DOS title with a one-man team) but id? A company with an already impressive track record, several released titles and a considerable industry impact even before they got working on Doom? Not even close.

If you want to see real indie, just grab any Simtel shareware dump from 1993-1994 and scan anything NOT published from Apogee or Epic Megagames.

Maes said:

It was released as shareware, sure, but IMO it wouldn't fit most definitions for "indie", even at the time. By that logic, then most Apogee and Epic Megagames titles were "indie". Maybe they actually were, if compared to a big-name company like e.g. Origin or Sierra, but I think there's an abuse of terms going on here. I would identify something like Captain Comic as indie (original MS-DOS title with a one-man team) but id? A company with an already impressive track record, several released titles and a considerable industry impact even before they got working on Doom? Not even close.

If you want to see real indie, just grab any Simtel shareware dump from 1993-1994 and scan anything NOT published from Apogee or Epic Megagames.

I can see your point, but at least Doom was published by id themselves while they still were a small team.

Orchid87 said:

I can see your point, but at least Doom was published by id themselves while they still were a small team.

Well, being self published != indie, or at least it's not a sufficient condition.

I don't know how much bigger they became afterwards with Quake, but they were big enough to undertake a complex project such as Doom with enough diversified manpower to have dedicated graphics designers, modelers, musicians etc. and they were already well-known in the industry with several successful titles under their belts, plus they were on everybody's lips due to the anticipation for Doom.

Now, if Doom was e.g. designed, coded and textured single-handedly by Carmack and released from his garage, now THAT would've been true indie (and 100x times more badass). But the way id worked was simply how the typical small-to-medium game dev company worked in the early 90s, and they were also relatively advanced and well funded (innovative NeXT dev environment etc.) Quite a far cry from e.g. the guys that made Cyberdogs in Turbo Pascal ;-)

The Hollywood-studio like "AAA title" environment was really the exception, rather than the norm.

What's your definition of an "indie" game?

Today, anything without the production values of CoD or Rage would probably qualify as "indie", whether it might be backed by a team of people so skilled that it would give id at the time of Doom a run for their money, or just one man.

In the 90s, the ante was clearly placed lower, and while the professionalism level of id would be considered "indie" by today's standards, it was top-notch in the 90s. Most freeware and shareware games NOT backed by Apogee or Epic from that era could be considered "indie". Anything "published" simply by uploading it to a BBS or FTP's /pub would be considered "indie", even though the term didn't even exist in that sense.

In the 80s, it was placed even lower, and it was not unusual for very successful games to be the work of only one man (with extremes such as Jeff Minter's games, or titles like Elite), even arcade and console hits. However in those days you really needed the backing of a traditional publisher to duplicate tapes/cartridges/floppies/arcade boards, so self-publishing was not an option, and such gifted individuals would work for leading software houses anyway. If you could code something like Jet Set Willy, you became a pro game developer!

I think the only defining features of "indie" is the total absence of traditional publishers (though DD blurs the line), relatively small team, and using freeware/shareware/scratchware marketing models (though DD blurs that distinction too), and a relative amateurism/lower production values (not necessarily low quality or lack of innovation though). The developers not being organised as a traditional company is another defining feature of indie (if you are only one-two people but you're calling yourselves "Awesome Software Ltd." but are not actually a proper company with offices, phones, faxes, checkbooks etc. that IMO fully qualifies as indie)

In any case, Doom doesn't cleanly fit into the indie category because it was backed by a successful, rich proper company, and merely used shareware as a (primary) distribution channel. I don't think Carmack or Romero handled order forms for Doom personally. If you are large enough to have a fixed office and a sales department, that's most definitively NOT indie.

Well that's my understanding of it too, I just wondered what the OP thought.

Doom was built, published, and initially sold all by id Software, right? not financed by or using licensed tech from another company or chopped up, edited & rushed out the door to meet the publisher's demands. I don't know how much more "indie" you can get. they worked with softdisk and apogee previously, then they were able to release Doom independently. \

That's more like "innovative" and "developed entirely in-house", respectively. Original and innovative work alone != indie, either.

Actually a company like id couldn't do anything that would pass as indie in 1993: they were already affirmed developers that merely took (initial) distribution in their own hands, but they were definitively not two random-ass dudes in a garage taking orders for Doom floppies by phone or opening envelopes with order forms (let alone that they went full-blown commercial later on, so shareware was just one of the channels they used, not the only one).

That would be like saying Half-Life 2 was an indie title because Valve made it all and sold it through Steam. These are big companies that don't answer to publishers or whatever, not small "independant" games developing houses.

To end this confusion, consider the case of an affirmed MUSIC artist or group, that one day decides to buy their own record company and publish themselves under their own label (as it has often been the case). Does that make them indie retroactively?

Now, if the same artist was quite literally selling tapes and CDs on the street (e.g. Wesley Willis did just that, many indie bands started taping themselves in limited runs of 100-1000 cassettes etc.), that WOULD be indie. They might slap-on a fictitious production and record label name e.g. "Band X productions presents a Band X album published through Band X records ltd. " but that's inconsequential.

We'd have to start by defining "indie" because every dictionary offers a slightly to radically different meaning for it.

Personally I'd narrow it down to publishing alone for the "technical" definition. If you publish your own stuff, you're indie.

Then there's the "indie" quality, which generally implies mediocrity and overall insufficient commercial value.

Doom was initially self-published but very professionally accomplished and equally profitable.

Phobus said:

That would be like saying Half-Life 2 was an indie title because Valve made it all and sold it through Steam. These are big companies that don't answer to publishers or whatever, not small "independant" games developing houses.

that isn't true at all, though. Don't try to tell me Valve Corporation invented Havok physics. and the Steam release was simultaneous with the disc releases, like the one I have on my desk. the Vivendi/Sierra and ATI logos are not just decoration. It doesn't matter if the developer is larger than the publisher(s) & other partners or vice versa: they license technology and work with publishers because they lack the ability to do everything independently in a cost-effective manner.

but if you check out this baby: http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/524287-doom/images/box-28413

there's only one bull in that rodeo.

Then the question is whether "self published" always means "indie".

The term indie evokes images of belonging to some sort of alternative/underground scene, being small in size, which clearly does not apply to the case of big firms like Origin or EA publishing their own games. Are they "indy" for their own titles but "big greedy publishers" for others then? Where do you draw the line?

Same thing for big recording companies that also have their own record labels. Are they "indy" at least for the stuff they own the copyright to? Where do you draw the line?

E.g. an underground punk band invents their own record label and self-publish. Is that indy? What if they publish ONE single or album from some other artist? What if they publish 10? Where do you draw the line?

gravager said:

Don't try to tell me Valve Corporation invented Havok physics.

If you're going to play that card, then no modern indie game is indie because they always use some third party libraries, at least for graphics, sound or input. Even Doom used a third party sound engine.

Jodwin said:

no modern indie game is indie because they always use some third party libraries, at least for graphics, sound or input

Don't forget the compiler ;-)

Unless of course everything is coded in raw machine code...but oh dang, then the hardware will not be truly indie! Better run that indie game on a self-designed indie computer....what, industry-standard components and architectures?

Damn...well, design one from scratch...what, basic electronic components are third-party too? Even resistors and individual transistors? Better invent a totally new technology, and it better not run on electricity OR ELSE.

I guess the pen and paper rpg I made ten years ago isn't indie either because the rules were written using Wordpad.

Yeah, and neither did grow the trees used to make the paper nor did you synthesize the plastics needed to make the pen, let alone prospect for the oil necessary to obtain the plastic and ink.

How about Adventure (aka Colossal Cave) and Rogue (and its ilk), are those indie enough? :)

I think a lot of CP/M software in the early 80's was published free or for very small costs, through various groups. You could order disks by mail, or get them via BBS. Most of it wasn't games though.

In the Amiga and DOS days, there were quite a few RPG and text/graphic adventure games from unknown authors. A lot of them had relatively primitive graphics (compared to commercial stuff) but some of them were still pretty good. A lot of that stuff was shareware (via BBS, or stuff like Fred Fish disks on Amiga).

Edit: RE pen & paper RPGs... TSR originally started in Gary Gygax' basement, literally (he had a "sand table" down there used for wargaming, which is where everyone played) and the original boxed sets of D&D were hand-assembled down there by him. Just him and two other friends...

hex11 said:

In the Amiga and DOS days, there were quite a few RPG and text/graphic adventure games from unknown authors. A lot of them had relatively primitive graphics (compared to commercial stuff) but some of them were still pretty good. A lot of that stuff was shareware (via BBS, or stuff like Fred Fish disks on Amiga).

That would definitively qualify, although they would be happy if they could call themselves "small software houses", even if informally. See, they had no need for pseudo-intellectual titles such as "indie" back then.

Sometimes, small publishers that publish OTHER people's works refer to themselves as "small independent publishers" and "indie publishers", even though they might publish nothing of their own.

Much confusion around the indie term, here. Indie = independent. Any personal interpretation you choose to attribute to the term is just that, a made-up fantasy. Independent does not mean small. Small means small, and independent means independent.

Jodwin said:

If you're going to play that card, then no modern indie game is indie because they always use some third party libraries, at least for graphics, sound or input. Even Doom used a third party sound engine.

I wonder about that engine.. was it something the "sound dork" previously created that id decided to license, or did id hire him to come in and build something while allowing him to retain the rights? either way, you're right.

I guess anybody using licensed software to build a game is just purchasing goods & services, same as when they bought their computers and the other things Maes went on about which probably have their own end user license (although in the US the validity of those changes depending on the lunar phase). raw materials & tools - you need them to do anything.

i hate the pseudo-intellectual title of "indie" as well. I keep putting it inside quotation marks. Apparently this expresses my reluctance to count it as a real word, or something.

on the subject of the large studios like EA, and where to draw the line... I don't know if there is an answer, but if I was a studio head trying to distance myself from any perceived "indie" roots, I might start by executing 30 or 40 hostile takeovers.

gravager said:

on the subject of the large studios like EA, and where to draw the line... I don't know if there is an answer, but if I was a studio head trying to distance myself from any perceived "indie" roots, I might start by executing 30 or 40 hostile takeovers.

Well, one could look at it based on how the games are developed independently: Is the development process independent without external influences (unlike in a large corporation with its marketing teams, stakeholders and license owners)? Is the development process funded independently (again unlikely in a large corporation)? Or is it enough that the company itself is fully independent (still unlikely in a large corporation thanks to stock owners)?

Microsoft is indie.

Porsche Monty said:

We'd have to start by defining "indie" because every dictionary offers a slightly to radically different meaning for it.

It means Doomguy is sitting under a tree strumming his acoustic guitar.

• Take a dev team. ANY dev team.
  
• Throw in a guy with long hair/dreadlocks, preferably smoking ganja and burning incense.
  
• ????
  
• INDIE
  

Optionally, he can be strumming an acoustic guitar as essel said, be saving the environment, preparing tofu or listening to Manu Chao.

Holy mother of God, is that like the wetback version of a hippie? disgusting at all imaginable levels.

*shrug* I just found him here.