A week or so ago, the triple-i initiative finally tore off its veil and publicized its raison d’etre, revealing itself (officially) as a non-E3, non-SGF games showcase being put on by a handful of small to midsize game companies. It was strange for more than one reason.
Firstly, and perhaps most shallowly, I don’t know how this is an “initiative.” Beyond the dictionary definition of an introductory motion, the word has an air of importance and responsibility. There are environmental initiatives dedicated to raising awareness about issues like pollution, typically within an administrative region. In the United States, initiatives are a way for normal citizens to force a vote or legislative decision by gathering enough signatures. There are social impact initiatives — generally very corporate but still, on the surface, about doing good by using company assets for charity or outreach programs.
An initiative, as the word stands, isn’t really about marketing.
Secondly, the provided definition of triple-i is easily the strangest I’ve ever encountered and not one I’ve ever read or heard anyone use. For the uninitiated, triple-i is generally understood as the gaming industry's laboriously complicated equivalent to what all other forms of media refer to as "independent." Just like an independent film, a triple-i game is produced outside of the major studio system and has a lower maximum budget as well as less overall support than what a major studio can offer. But, seemingly because indie was already in common usage, we've shied away from independent as a descriptor. On one hand, it's easy to see how that could cause confusion. Indie is a derivative of independent, after all. "How is this an indie studio?" they'd say after reading the announcement of Hideo Kojima's independent game studio, Kojima Productions. On the other hand, indie and independent are, in fact, two different words. We can and should expect people to recognize that.
Anyways, the press release I received from Thunder Lotus (Jotun, Spiritfarer) links to a nearly 3-year-old post from Tiny Hydra, which seems to be a consulting and contract third-party development studio. Their definition of triple-i reads as follows:
“[Triple-i] is meant to signify a game as being of AAA quality while still very much being an indie game (often sacrificing scope to achieve this). In other words, using the traditional definition, a AAA quality game made by a small team and with a fraction of the budget of modern AAA games.
“The term arose to describe the increasing number of indie games that rival AAA games in both quality and ambition. A prime example being Hellbalde: Senua’s Sacrifice [sic], a game with hyper-realistic graphics and excellent storytelling which was made by a core team of less than 50 people.
“We have fewer issues with the traditional definition for [triple-i] than for AAA as it’s based on quality, something each person can judge for themselves without having to sleuth through investment calls and press releases. However, it’s still a little imprecise, so let’s try and amend that too.
“As with AAA, our criteria for [triple-i] is based on a point system. In order to count as [triple-i] a game needs to score 7 or more points out of a possible 10. Because [triple-i] games are typically judged to have gotten as close to being a AAA game as is reasonable with fewer resources, most of the criteria are the same as our AAA evaluation with the addition that a game is also disqualified from being [triple-i] if the core team making it (for the majority of the project) exceeds 50 people.”¹
Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice is an odd example. Developer Ninja Theory has previously self-identified as a AAA and then “independent AAA”² studio (though the latter term would eventually mutate into triple-i). They arguably predate contemporary usage of the term indie as it pertains to games, having been around for nearly 20 years, releasing the cult classic action-adventure Enslaved: Odyssey to the West in 2010. Hellblade also had a budget of "under $10 million," including a $2 million bank loan.³ But, let’s just accept that bit for now.
Although the repeated usage of “quality” and “AAA quality” seems quite nebulous here, there is an attempt at quantifying it in the score chart: you may receive two points for being critically well-received, two for having a high level of polish and low number of bugs, and one point each for having 20 or more hours of gameplay, using cutting-edge technology and/or pushing technical boundaries, and having hyperrealistic graphics. As far as attempting to measure what people mean when they say “AAA quality,” I could consider it serviceable. Although, its example of a 70+ on Metacritic as a measure of high critical reception and the associated two points up for grabs is simultaneously completely meaningless and more than a little bit generous. Far Cry 6 doesn’t stop being a AAA game of AAA quality just because it’s dogshit, and indies — even "triple-i" ones — can struggle to receive enough reviews to be considered critically received at all.
Other than that, the triple-i specific criteria is: two points for a development and marketing budget in excess of $1 million, and one point for not being owned or funded by a large studio and/or publisher.
Given that it’s impossible to know in the vast majority of cases, we’re going to be very generous and assume that each studio and game meets the budget criteria, allowing them all to start with two points. Depending on how strict we are with the verbiage “core development team,” A44 (Ashen) and Evil Empire (Dead Cells live-ops) may instantly fail for having more than 50 employees. poncle (Vampire Survivors) predictably does not meet the majority of “AAA quality” metrics. The same is true of BlobFish (Brotato), ColePowered Games (Shadows of Doubt), Northplay (Headland), and TRIBAND (What the Golf?, What the Bat?). Gearbox (representing Risk of Rain 2 in particular) fails on the condition of… being major publisher and developer Gearbox Entertainment. Focus Entertainment, PlaySide Studios, and tinyBuild should also technically fail for this reason; however, it’s possible that they’re only listed because of their publishing arms, which each represent at least one other studio in the showcase. The following developers have not released any titles and can't be judged by these metrics at all: Drop Bear Bytes, Fumi Games, and Quite OK Games (not to be confused with Extremely OK Games, a showcase A-lister).
The mechanics of this definition of triple-i and its inclusion in an official press release boggle the mind, as does the number of studios involved which defy all understandings of triple-i, including the one provided.
Thirdly, I quite strongly disagree with Evil Empire Marketing Director Bérenger Dupré. I think “triple-i” sounds really fucking stupid, and the implication that they invented the term for the showcase, joking as it might’ve been, made me grimace. From the press release: “We felt a need for a showcase that highlights wildly different indie games but that have one thing in common; they resonate with millions of players around the world. Since using letters seems to be the trend in the industry, we figured that adding a couple of i’s to indie was a fair way to describe this new format. Also, triple-i just sounds cool," said Bérenger Dupré, Evil Empire’s Marketing Director.
It reads like a joke, even though it’s not particularly funny, and even if it didn’t, it would make much less sense if it was serious. That would imply that whoever wrote the press release for Thunder Lotus, one of the primary showcasers, wasn’t informed that this was the version of triple-i they were going with, and they needn’t dig up a years-old blog post to try and explain it to their audience. And yet…
The first portion of Dupré’s quote, before the “punchline” of triple-i sounding cool and letters being trendy, serves as a much more succinct definition that aligns more closely with the showcase — it emphasizes the commonality between each studio being their millions-strong, global playerbases. And that’s it. It’s the most relaxed part of the craftily postured press outreach that’s defined the triple-i initiative, which itself is the no-makeup makeup of video game marketing. It is indie but not indie, an initiative but actually a showcase, an ambiguous “collaborative effort” that's really a manufactured marketing beat intended to take the place of E3 without the budget-busting of Summer Games Fest. And really, that function would be completely fine if it wasn’t covered with this bizarre veneer, at times self-congratulatory and at others deliberately understated. The mentions of being “no frills,” having no sponsors or advertisements, and respecting the viewers’ time grates against the showcase’s implicit presence as a commercial, as does the white-knuckled clinging to the term “indie” even as they admittedly grow beyond its bounds and into something else, or the quiet explanation that there is no place for developers of this size at the big showcases while they self-describe as beloved fan favorites and top independent creators.
I agree that there should be a dedicated space for developers of this size, but it’s clear even at this point in games history that this fabricated one is a poor fit. It’s a disservice to us all when companies mature and, instead of humbly outgrowing old terminology, choose to "stay indie" in name alone in an attempt to maintain their grassroots goodwill.
Sources: