These numbers make it really obvious to me why most indie (and, in some cases non-indie) business models exist, and why they produce the games they produce. To be successful, you need to be in one of a few situations:

*A single developer that makes a good title (Petri, for example) *A single or set of developers with short release cycles to keep multiple games relevant over short periods of time. (Almost all iPhone developers). *A developer that has an already popular game and is able to get on one of the more visible services like XBLA, PSN, or WiiWare (That Game Company, the Behemoth, 2D boy, Number None)

via Is There Money To Be Made? – Jeff On Games.

It’s interesting to note that Xbox takes the same cut as the Apple for their Xbox Live Indie Games store. The number isn’t as wildly publicized as the iPhone’s 30%.

The entire section on Alternative Funding Models is begging for an entrepreneur to come on and figure out. With a couple of lawyers armed at his or her side.

This is why indie games experiment the way they do. Shorten the dev cycle, concentrate on mechanics and prototypes, keep art resources and requirements low, release lots of games quickly. I feel like there needs to be more available. I’m sure there are indies out there that want to experiment with things that take longer dev cycles, (weird dynamics, involved dynamic art styles, or, god fobid, strange narative structure), but can’t for survivability reasons, and that’s a damn shame.

it’s these limits that make Independent Games much more satisfying, when designed and implemented correctly. It’s kind of a reason why I’ve been meaning to start the Indie Gamer Podcast for spme time… Maybe I should ride this wave of productivity to that point.