Forums > MobyGames > Indie games?
Patrick Bregger (303226) on 1/20/2011 3:39 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
We already have a lot of indie games in our database and a game neither needs to be from a publisher nor commercial to be allowed. But a game needs to be executable on its own, i.e. no mods which need another game to run. The only exceptions are commercial mods (which makes them to unofficial add-ons).
A game also needs to be officially released to be included into the database, i.e. no beta releases. Minecraft is a very special case because it is commercial.
Indra was here (20752) on 1/20/2011 4:41 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Patrick Bregger wrote--]A game also needs to be officially released to be included into the database, i.e. no beta releases.
[/Q --end Patrick Bregger wrote--]Dum de dum de dum.
Don't tell them about meine alpha releases.
Plok (220056) on 1/20/2011 5:50 PM · Permalink · Report
Well, the game is stand-alone, as it doesn't need C&C Renegade to run. It only uses the Renegade source as a base. The game is open to everyone who wishes to play it, although Bluehell Productions, the dev team, calls the current version 1.4.0 "beta release 4", but if we look at the recent Top 100 IndieDB 2010 Awards, it was nominated in its "Top 100 RELEASED Indies" section (http://forums.cncnz.com/index.php?showtopic=14594 for proof).
You may also want to visit www.apathbeyond.com
Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 1/20/2011 6:30 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
It only uses the Renegade source as a base.
Unless the devteam has licensed this engine from EA / Westwood, from the sounds of things that would make it somewhere between a mod and a total conversion. Generally speaking we do allow the documentation here of stand-alone mods and TCs that don't require external programs (eg. the original game) to work, but only in cases where the engine is used with permission, has been licensed or released as open source to the community.
if we look at the recent Top 100 IndieDB 2010 Awards, it was nominated in its "Top 100 RELEASED Indies" section
Yes, there are plenty of very popular, widely played games that for one matter of policy or another aren't currently allowed to be documented here. Anything that is a game that was sold in a box on a store shelf definitely belongs, but everything beyond those constraints exceeds the original intentions of the database engineers and might not be accepted. I wish it were otherwise, but we're not there yet.
Plok (220056) on 1/20/2011 6:35 PM · Permalink · Report
Oh they have a permission allright... EA has mentioned and praised APB on commandandconquer.com, and it was also featured in Game Informer, PC Gamer, Games for Windows, Let's Play, PC Zone etc.
Indra was here (20752) on 1/20/2011 7:53 PM · Permalink · Report
Stand-alone + non-official + permission (include source) = add it to the database. In this case, probably you. Might want to wait until it's no longer beta though (if that ever happens) or not, depending on how you argue your case.
MG is still a wee bit confused about beta releases that have been released to the public.
Plok (220056) on 1/20/2011 8:01 PM · Permalink · Report
Concerning the beta mumbo-jumbo... They DO mean to release 2.0.0 Gamma at some point, but 1.4.0 (Nuclear Winter release) is never actually referred to as Beta, except in changelogs and Gamma previews. IndieDB considers the game as a whole RELEASED, not upcoming (as its potential successor, Apocalypse Rising).
Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 1/20/2011 8:47 PM · Permalink · Report
Oh they have a permission allright... EA has mentioned and praised APB on commandandconquer.com,
Acknowledgement and praise is nice, but really what we're asking for is that someone with rights has signed a contract with the new developers, so that when the person currently at the desk praising it retires, the person who replaces him doesn't send a cease-and-desist letter. It's nice to have the legitimacy of one crucial man behind your project, but so long as you only have that one man on board it's a bit of a weak link.
and it was also featured in Game Informer, PC Gamer, Games for Windows, Let's Play, PC Zone etc.
Provided none of these sources own Renegade or the Command and Conquer franchise, they are of no interest to me in determining the legitimacy of the (let's face it) unauthorized hackjob.
Indra was here (20752) on 1/20/2011 9:17 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]Oh they have a permission allright... EA has mentioned and praised APB on commandandconquer.com,
Acknowledgement and praise is nice, but really what we're asking for is that someone with rights has signed a contract with the new developers, so that when the person currently at the desk praising it retires, the person who replaces him doesn't send a cease-and-desist letter. It's nice to have the legitimacy of one crucial man behind your project, but so long as you only have that one man on board it's a bit of a weak link. [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] Doesn't have to be that formal. If they mentioned the game in their own official website, it should suffice as a we'll not sue yer ass for IP infringement statement.
That source however, has to be expressly identified in EA's website or one of their official websites. Third party sources don't count.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 1/20/2011 9:47 PM · Permalink · Report
Doesn't have to be that formal.
I'm trying to set a high bar to avoid approver disagreement over what constitutes legitimacy and to avoid nitpicking. Personally, I don't care about formality. But if the approver who gets the contentious submission likes it and waves it through, it can still be sent back later on.
Indra was here (20752) on 1/20/2011 10:26 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]Doesn't have to be that formal.
I'm trying to set a high bar to avoid approver disagreement over what constitutes legitimacy and to avoid nitpicking. Personally, I don't care about formality. But if the approver who gets the contentious submission likes it and waves it through, it can still be sent back later on. [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] True, but there's always the issue of proving the source. Rarely are contracts/deals mentioned in sources other than press releases, which may prove hard to find. So it basically boils down to any official statement/enforcement compared to questionable third party sources.
Slip of the tongue by their own PR should also suffice until retracted later. :)
Plok (220056) on 1/21/2011 1:24 PM · Permalink · Report
Here, on the Red Alert Universe section of commandandconquer.com I've found an article linking to CNCNZ's interview with APB's dev team, thus praising the game. As far as I remember, EA spoke about many mods on BattleCast Primetime, but this one got special attention. http://portal.commandandconquer.com/portal/site/redalert/article/detail?contentId=fe51e884edea6210VgnVCM1000006017780aRCRD
On APB's IndieDB site (http://www.indiedb.com/games/red-alert-a-path-beyond), to the bottom of the page there is a box which indicates the Genre, Theme, Players and PROJECT TYPE: Indie.
Indra was here (20752) on 1/21/2011 2:13 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Source seems legit, by the way.
Though I must express some concern about the use of mod here. I first proposed the exclusion of mods in MG (via MG Standards, not entirely sure why, to be honest). Especially now since I have trouble telling the difference between a mod and an expansion.
So I had to have a little discussion with some of the other voices in my head as to why mods should be excluded from the database:
Me: "Why should mods be excluded?"
Voice #1: "Not stand-alone and require original game to work."
Voice #2: "So do expansions."
Voice #1: "Expansions should be excluded too"
Voice #2: "Er..."
Voice #3: "What Voice #1 means is that mods historically not significant enough to warrant separate identification."
Voice #1: "What he said."
Voice #4: "So what is significant enough to warrant separate identification?"
Voice #5: "Fuck Quest
Voice #2: "Major taste issues, dude."
Voice #5: "Tell that to Voice #24"
Voice #6: "Is it my turn now?"
Voice #3: "No. What about you #7?"
Voice #7: "Issues refer to past treatment of mods. They have become larger, some if not many do justify some sort of equal treatment to individually separate games. However, technically the only real justification is the pretext of being official and being officially released. Who's to say that an expansion isn't a mod where the construction set is only accessible by the developers?"
Voice #1: "Huh?"
Voice #7: "Exactly.
Voice #2: "So what you're saying is, unofficial mods are a no-no but official mods are called expansions, thus warranting inclusion in the database?"
Voice #7: "Bingo."
Voice #5: "So what about this mod-game?"
Voice #3: "It appears to be a new issue. Being somewhat semi-official. If it were released by the official developer team, it would be credited as a new game entry no questions asked. If it were credited by a people who did not receive permission, it would be rejected no questions asked."
Voice #1: "Huh?"
Voice #7: "Exactly."
Me: "I have migraines again."
Plok (220056) on 1/21/2011 2:23 PM · Permalink · Report
Tell Voice 7 that and Voice 3 that some people consider it a mod because it doesn't use an independent engine, but many others call it an indie because it's almost completely different than C&C Renegade.
Tell Voice 1 that it IS standalone and doesn't require Renegade (who knows what code conflicts would that create?)
I'd like to hear Voice 6's opinion, though XD
Indra was here (20752) on 1/21/2011 4:16 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Ignore the other voices in my head since I don't listen to them anyway :p
I must first apologize for blowing up your simple question into a whole new level. I tend to do that sometimes. :)
Honestly I can't really tell without personally viewing the installation process, not even sure if it makes a difference either. If the game is available and doesn't require any C&C software, that's the closest bet that it should be included in the database. If it still does require additional third-party software (or is it first party? :p i.e. C&C), it's still open for debate, unfortunately.
Well, first of all the use of the word mod here seems to be inaccurate of sorts. One gamer's mod is another gamer's expansion. Mod, campaign map, downloadable content, expansion...too hard to tell, content depending, so might as well not get in to it right now.
Viewing the philosophy of MG throughout the years, for a game to be included in this database, it really has nothing to do with being official or commercial. There are too many inconsistencies regarding official and commercial for it to be taken seriously, since many games in the database already defy both requirements (hell, we even have games that aren't games :p).
The commercial argument is an easy way out that unfortunately ignores the fact that there are many non-commercial games made using once commercial engines. The only reasoning that has been consistent thus far is:
[1] How a game was released;
[2] Originality of content;
[3] Its relation of dependency to other software (games).
Ad.1.
How a game was released refers to how it was made available to the public. A closed beta game doesn't count obviously. A beta, alpha, or kappa game if made available counts, despite what the developer says. After experiencing Gothic 3 v1.0, I personally really don't care what developers say. :p
A publicly released product is a publicly released product. Anything made available to public is subject to peer review.
Ad.2.
Next is originality of content. This is where the official or not official comes into regard. Not that it really, really matters mind you, but no one really wants to credit blokes who hijacked someone else's product, such as hacks. An unofficial derivative (read=based on) game that was 100% originally programmed, is by default included in the database, no questions asked. So it's not really a question of official or not official.
Ad.3.
If an unofficial game was still was dependent on another game, then it's not 100% originally programmed. There also has been some precedents here on unofficial mods/expansions/campaign map/whatever, most famous of all was that Dungeon Siege - Ultima VII that eventually got rejected. Myself being one of advocates to its rejection. A position I'm re-wondering right now actually. Nah. :p
Which is why the official reasoning still (incorrectly) is used as the basis of argument: an official expansion means that the game still qualifies for being 100% originally programmed. Not necessarily by the same dev team, but as far as copyright is concerned, I guess you get the picture.
--
So after getting that junk out of my head, if it (da game) fulfills all those three criteria. it's in. If it's lacking one, it's not.
Oh, this is just my reasoning, mind you. Not MobyGames.
Hey I thought I had a life. Now where did I put it?
Patrick Bregger (303226) on 1/21/2011 2:30 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Our current standards are pretty decisive. There are only four cases of expansions:
1) Official and free --> allowed
2) Official and commercial --> allowed
3) Unofficial and commercial ---> allowed (which allows to be used as loophole in some cases)
4) Unofficial and free --> not allowed
Case 5) pre-packaged with the original game/engine just means it is no expansion anymore and needs to be viewed from a different angle. Personally I think the question "endorsed by the copyright holder" should not be taken into consideration as long as it is "officially" released by the developer this way (you know, not some Warez site which packs mod and base game together) What it different from this to the Adventure hacks in the database?
This has one reason and one reason only: floodgates. When we allow one mod, we have to allow all mods and if it is the mod which removes the clothing of the female lead character and gives her bigger breasts. Or new weapons. Our database is just not built to support this.
Our "new game" rules only concern what kind of games we (currently) support and which not. We lack considerations of quality or notability like Wikipedia does; and for a good reason. It would be very dangerous to try to qualify mods into "worthy" or "unworthy" - which would be the only way to don't flood the database.
By the way, about this C&C game: I don't think it should be included into the database; praise from EA or not. The developers themselves call it beta and this is what normally counts for us.
vedder (71094) on 1/21/2011 3:42 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Yes, the only thing that refrains the game from being entered right now is the combination of "beta" + "not commercial".
If it were up to me, that shouldn't be a problem, as long as it's a publicly accessible beta (as opposed to a closed beta). But I have a hard time convincing the admins of that. Although I did get MineCraft in due to it being commercial. But not FarmVille, even though they are making blazillions with it :/
Patrick Bregger (303226) on 1/21/2011 3:44 PM · Permalink · Report
Why not? As far as I understand FarmVille has some kind of item shop.
Plok (220056) on 1/21/2011 5:47 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
@vedder - I already said that it's a public "beta". Everyone who wishes to play it can download it.
@Patrick Bregger - If the Nameless Mod can be included in a database which is not even a total conversion of Deus Ex, why can't APB be here?
Patrick Bregger (303226) on 1/21/2011 6:00 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Because TNM is "commercial" (speak: you can buy it for money on a DVD) and public beta doesn't count as released. These policies were established in 1999 and probably should be carefully adapted into the reality of "always beta" internet games but that's the status quo.
Of course this could lead to potential problems if the game is actually released "for real". With our reasoning for example we could have included the beta test of Ultima Online in MobyGames (as the participants were required to pay five dollars).
Plok (220056) on 1/21/2011 6:11 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
But the TNM article states that it can also be downloaded as freeware. And it's also an add-on. APB is a completely different game and standalone, and if ModDB/IndieDB state that it's actually released, then I don't think we have nothing to argue about THAT.
Patrick Bregger (303226) on 1/21/2011 6:21 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
If the developer says it is beta than it is beta. Easy as that.
About TNM: we speak about two different releases here; the download release and the DVD release. The download release is freeware and would not be allowed into the database and the DVD release which counts as commercial and is therefore allowed. But this means that information about the freeware release can be described, too.
Patrick Bregger (303226) on 1/21/2011 6:47 PM · Permalink · Report
Alone the fact that we discuss the semantics of one of the most controversial policy topics just a few days after you registered means that you'll fit perfectly in our community :)
The next potential installment: When Do We Split A Game Entry And When Not...
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/22/2011 11:51 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] Acknowledgement and praise is nice, but really what we're asking for is that someone with rights has signed a contract with the new developers, so that when the person currently at the desk praising it retires, the person who replaces him doesn't send a cease-and-desist letter. [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]
Why, we even have a group for those games.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 1/23/2011 7:08 PM · Permalink · Report
Though by and large these are more cases of intellectual property infringement (game design, art assets) than direct unauthorized code re-use.
I'd like to see Ms. Pac-Man in this list, but the legally complicated part of her history is in the arcades, not in the home conversion annals documented here.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/24/2011 3:43 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] I'd like to see Ms. Pac-Man in this list, but the legally complicated part of her history is in the arcades, not in the home conversion annals documented here. [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] Unless we have an executive decision on never, ever including arcade games, or even acknowledging that they exist, I don't think that matters.
j.raido 【雷堂嬢太朗】 (99525) on 1/24/2011 4:44 AM · Permalink · Report
Incidentally, I feel that for groups like that they really should be required to have the justification for it described in each game's trivia. From the entries, I have no idea why Chaos League and Snoggle are in that group. Same for things like this or this.
Indra was here (20752) on 1/24/2011 8:03 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start 雷堂承太朗 -djsw- wrote--]Incidentally, I feel that for groups like that they really should be required to have the justification for it described in each game's trivia. From the entries, I have no idea why Chaos League and Snoggle are in that group. Same for things like this or this. [/Q --end 雷堂承太朗 -djsw- wrote--] Dang it. Why didn't I think of that. Games that should qualify in such game groups should have an explicit trivia entry first.
Why there isn't a remove game from game group option for approvers is beyond me.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 1/20/2011 4:03 PM · Permalink · Report
To answer the more general version of your question, indie game (x) isn't in here yet because /you/ haven't added it yet.