Why Indies Games Are Thriving and Triple-A is Falling Behind

Mark Roberts
Jan 27, 2025
7 min read

Updated: Jan 28, 2025

Welcome to the first-ever Bogland Games blog post! Today, we will dive into a "hot" topic: Why are indie games thriving while some Triple-A studios seem to be stumbling? The answer isn’t just about microtransactions or live services—it’s deeper than you think, and it reflects a shift in what gamers truly value. Let’s explore the rise of indie games and what makes them so special.

Laptop displaying "Test Scene" in front of tall grasses in a bog on a cloudy day. — Finding creative inspiration in the bog while pretending to work on a laptop.

Why Indie Games Thrive

Indie games have been thriving in recent years because they embrace creativity and risk in ways that Triple-A studios often cannot. Indie developers operate with small teams—sometimes just a single person—and lower budgets, which grants them the freedom to experiment without the immense financial pressures that larger studios face. For example, Treyarch, the studio behind the Call of Duty: Black Ops series (My favourite cod series), employs 500-600 people, while many indie games are made by teams of 5-10 individuals or even solo developers. This agility allows indies to focus on fresh, niche ideas that larger studios would consider too risky.

Another major factor in their success is the rise of YouTubers and live streamers, who have amplified the visibility of indie games. Take Lethal Company for example, a viral hit developed by a 21-year-old solo dev who goes by the name Zeekerss online, he sold an estimated 15 million copies (according to SteamSpy [1]) which is a ridiculous number, even a triple-A studio. Its unique gameplay and hilarious moments made it a social media sensation, proving the power of user-generated content in boosting indie game sales. I’ve spent countless hours laughing and enjoying Lethal Company with friends—a testament to the value and joy these games can offer for a modest price.

Video game scene: A silhouetted figure stands in a dimly lit room with a painting. Text shows "Drop Painting: [G]". A sense of stealth prevails. — Playing Lethal Company with my friends while cackling of laughter.

Lethal Company is far from an outlier. Many other indie games owe their success to the combination of creativity, word-of-mouth, and community support:

• Vampire Survivors: Simple yet addictive gameplay with endless replayability.

• Cult of the Lamb: A quirky, genre-blending experience that captivated audiences.

• Valheim: A multiplayer survival game that became a Steam phenomenon.

• Balatro: An inventive poker deck-building roguelike.

• Mouthwashing: A psychological horror game designed to challenge and unsettle players.

The common thread is clear: indie games succeed because they connect deeply with players, delivering experiences that feel fresh, authentic, and personal.

Player-Driven Support: The Indie Community Effect

One reason indie games thrive is their strong player communities. Early access, for example, allows developers to gather feedback directly from players, refining their games in real time. This collaborative process ensures a final product that reflects the audience's wants. Players also rally behind indie projects because they respect the passion and challenges of small teams. While Triple-A studios often face backlash for buggy £60 releases, indie developers are given more grace. This mutual respect creates a supportive environment where both sides work together to improve the game (usually).

This close connection enhances development and sustains indie games long after release. Players support indie projects because they recognise the potential in these games and empathise with the hurdles faced by small teams or solo developers. This fosters loyalty and patience that’s often absent in the relationship between players and Triple-A studios.

When a Triple-A game launches in a poor state, it’s typically met with widespread criticism and questions like, “How could a multi-million-dollar studio release something so broken at a £60 price tag?” In contrast, indie developers are more often forgiven because players see their limited resources and genuine passion. Simply put, indie games thrive on a strong, collaborative relationship between developers and their players—a relationship built on mutual respect and shared enthusiasm.

The Triple-A Dilemma: Beyond Microtransactions

Microtransactions are a divisive topic in gaming. Some players don’t mind them, others tolerate them, but many outright hate their impact specifically on gameplay (myself included). When done correctly, microtransactions can be harmless—optional purchases that support a game without affecting core mechanics, in my opinion, are fine. However, many games fail to strike this balance, leading to systems that prioritise monetisation over player experience.

This trend shows no sign of slowing down. Microtransactions are projected to generate a staggering $129.76 billion by 2029, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.7% [2]. Compounding the issue are the psychological tactics often employed, particularly targeting younger players, to encourage spending on cosmetic skins or other in-game items.

Bar chart titled "Online Microtransaction Global Market Report 2025," showing growth from $77.8B in 2024 to $129.76B in 2029 with CAGR 10.7%. — Projected Growth of the Online Microtransaction Market: From $77.8 Billion in 2024 to $129.76 Billion in 2029 with an Annual Growth Rate of 10.7%.

But beyond microtransactions and live service models lies a deeper issue: I believe it is the unsustainable ambition of creating massive/overly complex games. Triple-A studios are increasingly aiming for larger and more complex worlds, but size often comes at the expense of substance. A sprawling open world is meaningless if it lacks engaging content to fill it with.

Consider Ubisoft’s notorious “quadruple-A” project, Skull and Bones. Originally inspired by the beloved ship mechanics from Assassin’s Creed Black Flag, the game promised to expand on the pirate experience. However, after 11 years of development and an estimated $650-850 million [3] spent on making it, it was met with great disappointment and failed to deliver. The problem? They made Its scope simply too ambitious for what the studio could handle. Instead of building on a solid foundation, it attempted to be something far grander—and ultimately fell short.

This pattern is becoming all too familiar. Just because studios can create massive open worlds doesn’t mean they should. Instead, they should prioritise meaningful experiences over sheer size. The focus should always be on meaningful experiences rather than sheer scale. Thus this is where indie games begin to pick up the slack.

Authenticity Over Gloss: What Gamers Want

Indie games are no doubt triple-A games, they do come with their jank at times but they don't pretend that they are Triple-A games either although some smaller studios aren't far off it nowadays. Instead, They take solid gameplay experience over "super realistic graphics" (I'm looking at you Unreal Engine Games) and run with it. In the past, gamers prioritised hyper-realistic graphics with each console generation. Today, gameplay takes centre stage, with graphics often seen as a bonus. (remember the Xbox 720 "rumours" where it was supposed to be 3D, good times). But nowadays the majority of gamers just want good games, good graphics are a bonus hence the large majority of these indie games look pixelated to hide a lot of the inconsistencies in the game. Something I heard Gabe Newell say in the Half-Life: 25th Anniversary Documentary was that "I have never thought to myself that realism is fun, I go play games to have fun".[4]

This is something I resonate with, as do many other people now too.

Another thing is people don't have as much time as they used to. People like myself who work full-time jobs and have other commitments can't afford to spend a lot of time each night trying to get into a 40-hour long story-driven game as well as fork out the £70 for these games. With indie games, you get what you pay for and usually, that pays off with how much value from game playtime you get out of these. I'll go back to my Lethal company for example, I paid £8 at the time and got 30 hours of playtime out of that game. Of course, the game has jank and bugs, but I found that only added to the hilariousness of the game. Like I said, you get what you pay for with Indie games.

Looking Ahead: Lessons Triple-A Studios Can Learn from Indies

Triple-A studios can learn valuable lessons from both indie developers and smaller-scale successes in the industry. Overscoping has become a significant issue, and the consequences often fall on the developers. Unfortunately, 2024 was a harsh year for the Triple-A game development industry, with an estimated 14,000 people [5] laid off. These layoffs stemmed from companies taking on overly ambitious projects that, when they flopped, left studios without the resources to fund their next endeavours.

The solution? Focus on creating experiences that prioritise quality over sheer scale. Not every game needs a 40-hour story or a budget exceeding half a billion dollars. Players are increasingly valuing engaging gameplay, innovation, and polished execution over size alone.

There are examples of studios, both large and small, striking this balance. Take Larian Studios, for instance. While technically an independent studio, it achieved something remarkable with Baldur’s Gate 3, delivering a game that rivalled Triple-A titles in quality without the bloated budget or massive team size. With a $100 million budget and six years of development, Larian succeeded because it focused on depth, creativity, and player choice—not excessive scope or unrealistic ambition.

On the other end of the spectrum is Outer Wilds by Mobius Digital. Developed by a small team with limited resources, it achieved critical acclaim for its innovative gameplay and compelling narrative. Rather than creating a sprawling open world, Outer Wilds focused on a tightly designed solar system that rewarded curiosity and exploration. Its creativity and polished execution captivated players and proved that meaningful experiences don’t require massive budgets or grandiose production.

These two examples show that success doesn’t hinge on size or scale but on thoughtful, resourceful development. Triple-A studios would do well to adopt these lessons: focus on creativity, polish, and deliver games that truly resonate with their audience.

Closing Section

The gaming industry stands at a crossroads, where both indie developers and Triple-A studios can learn from each other to create a brighter future for gamers. Indie games demonstrate that creativity, passion, and a focus on meaningful gameplay can thrive even with limited resources. At the same time, studios like Larian prove that ambitious projects can succeed when resources are invested thoughtfully and the player experience is prioritized over sheer scale.

As an aspiring indie developer, I’ve been inspired by these examples and countless others, and I hope to channel that inspiration into games that players will love. The beauty of the gaming world is that it’s driven by a shared passion—from developers to players.

Here’s to a future filled with great games and unforgettable experiences in 2025.

Join the Conversation

Let’s keep the conversation going! What are your thoughts on the rise of indie games or the lessons Triple-A studios could take from them? I’d love to hear your perspective in the comments or on the Bogland Games' socials.