Gaming

I think that depends on who's doing it, what they're going for, and what approach they take.

For me, I'm aiming squarely at 2d, because I think it's a better medium for focusing on story. You're more able to take advantage of human pattern recognition than with higher fidelity, and you literally reduce your design considerations and troubleshooting by an entire dimension.

I think the difference, though, is you have to harness the power of people's passion for their work. If you try to set up an 'indie' studio and you're basically just running on a big studio's model with less money, you're probably not going to flourish. Many of the examples of indies that do well that we see are those who put everything into their work, often working totally solo. They're people who had an idea and were stubborn enough to make it happen without filtering it through somebody else's lens or asking anyone for permission to do it.

I think in the current indie market if you're kind of sitting around waiting for someone to point you at where to go, you're probably going to be pretty lost. But if you've got a strong sense of direction? If you're not just making the 9 billionth rogue-like platformer this year? I think it's a prime environment to do pretty well if you have a way to stick out from the crowd.

Maybe not AAA well, but if you're an indie publisher what do you need AAA money for? Judging by the trend of studios making a great game or two then getting big and slowly watering down their product in favor of homogenized board-driven safe plays and money grabs, large quantities of concentrated money are terrible for art without some kind of protection.

Personally, I think the best way to go about it is by making indie coops with charters that restrict selling out, merging, or going public. Maybe even have some kind of provision that splits the decision making of the coop's members across inter-related but independent coops. Like an amoeba.

Cell division isn't just important to maintain a healthy population, it's important to maintain the health of individual cells. Why don't we do the same thing with businesses?

Why should the measure of success be toxic growth that adds nothing to the economy when by resisting the impulse to sell off to the literal economic cancer ruining our planet and our own well-being, we can out-compete them en masse with superior products?

What would happen if all these studios Microsoft is liquifying had said no when some corpo met them at a crossroads and gave them a suitcase full of gold for their souls?

What would happen if instead of selling to the highest bidder immediately after becoming successful, companies invested in their own potential and were able to grow healthily while actually caring about the product they put out and the people they employ?

That literally can happen, we just have to do it. We have to decide that the Overton window of economic behavior shouldn't determine how we act. That it actually is a bad thing to let the giant bully of a company ruining your industry give you a few million dollars to stop existing.

Just like, don't turn your business into a big fat juicy sheep and sell it to the wolf. Get some wool. Make some sweaters. Let's all be cozy instead, yeah?