next »

[rayteoactive]

I don't get it. So which is more indie?
- someone that has more than enough cash in hand to fund his own game development team?
- or a bunch of guys that works in the basement, a publisher sees it and invest on them.

Point is, I don't see how one is consider "not indie" just because he has a publisher or he gets whatever financial support. In fact, looking at Shank's development team office and set up, I wouldn't be surprise if the guys had already some cash on hand when development begin.

If Derek is funded by EA(or someone), I think he'd still make a pretty damn fine indie game. EA might have some creative control, but it's not like anyone is going to go down without a fight. And that is taking the assumption that all publisher are gonna be that bad

[benbradley]

"Indie" derives from "Independent", so by definition I'd expect an indie game to be independent of something. Whether that refers to being independently funded, marketed, or designed isn't clear. But this deal is how the game industry should work, IMO. If the game is very far along then EA will probably be able to offer the game extra funds to launch on multiple consoles, and marketing support. But it's still an indie design. Being independently marketed can be cool but surely that isn't really what makes the spirit of an Indie game? I'd say it's the creative freedom.

[C.A. Silbereisen]

I don't really care if it's "indie" or not, but I'm not financially supporting EA no matter how good the game is.

[JMickle]

I like it when this happens (EA support, not an indie argument  ), because it is just proving more and more the more socialist aspects of the internet and video games. Valve is the same, really, as they picked up on counterstrike and funded that and many other half-life mods that were completely independently made, and are now huge.

Good times 

[Rob Lach]

Don't you just love the indie dream.

Work your ass off on a project with very little or no financial support and come up with something amazing so that maybe, just maybe, you can get a wide release and be ridiculed for not being indie enough.

[Rob Lach]

I like it when this happens (EA support, not an indie argument  ), because it is just proving more and more the more socialist aspects of the internet and video games. Valve is the same, really, as they picked up on counterstrike and funded that and many other half-life mods that were completely independently made, and are now huge.

Good times 

Day of Defeat, Portal, and Team Fortress all have indie roots.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

from what i gather, they didn't sell EA the game or anything, they're just using EA to get the game on consoles; -- EA will doubtless get a lot of the profits of that, but they prolly wouldn't be able to get the game on consoles otherwise.

so it's really no worse (or better) than, say, nicalis porting cave story and la mulana to the wii, or publishing nifflas's night game for it.

[Melly]

Don't you just love the indie dream.

Work your ass off on a project with very little or no financial support and come up with something amazing so that maybe, just maybe, you can get a wide release and be ridiculed for not being indie enough.

And then of course you could laugh at the elitist gentlemen in these forum from your bathtub of money.

[TwilightVulpine]

Don't you just love the indie dream.

Work your ass off on a project with very little or no financial support and come up with something amazing so that maybe, just maybe, you can get a wide release and be ridiculed for not being indie enough.

And then of course you could laugh at the elitist gentlemen in these forum from your bathtub of money.

I know this is just a joke, but when money becomes the main priority, rather than the player community, the love for games or of making games or the quality of the game itself, it may end up harming the final result.

Actually, when I think about it, it kind of makes sense that an indie developer starts to be looked down by some when they are supported by a big publisher. Doesn't the indie community exist to support the growth of indie developers? Isn't strangely fitting that some move on once the developers are supported by the big ones? It becomes a cycle of growth.

[Nate Kling]

I know this is just a joke, but when money becomes the main priority, rather than the player community, the love for games or of making games or the quality of the game itself, it may end up harming the final result.

For me I think this is where I would draw the line (partly)  For me it really has to do with your purpose for making a game.  Would you be making a game if you couldn't make lots of money out of it, if it just barely supported you?  I think most importantly are you making games because you love them.  But there also is that feeling from indie games that comes from small teams with small resources, and it's a feeling that the game is personal.  Not having everything perfect gives it a feeling that it was crafted with love and in a single or small group's vision of creativity.  Im pretty surprised by the amount of people not upset by being backed by EA I was really curious how people felt about the issue and help reveal what "indie" exactly is these days.

[Alex May]

Day of Defeat, Portal, and Team Fortress all have indie roots.

Have to disagree on Portal - that was a team of students, not indie developers or modders.

[BlueSweatshirt]

Day of Defeat, Portal, and Team Fortress all have indie roots.

Have to disagree on Portal - that was a team of students, not indie developers or modders.

A team of students who were independent, then later hired by Valve to make a full fledged game with their concept. Portal's roots seem pretty indie to me.

[Martin 2BAM]

I think it only matters for the developer if the publisher starts demanding changes, cuts, additions, imposing strict deadlines, owning the ip, etc. If the control over development is still on the developer's hands, I think it's fairly safe to say they're still indie, as fuzzy as that term may seem sometimes.

I think the same.

I know this is just a joke, but when money becomes the main priority, rather than the player community, the love for games or of making games or the quality of the game itself, it may end up harming the final result.

From my experience, not not having enough money to support yourself makes it a priority.

If money showers without any requests, why not take it?
You always depend on something to eat and live: If it's either a side-job, a publisher, a portal, advertising, off your parents or even EA. You can't be indepentent from the economy.

As Melly said and I agree, being indie is about being in control of your game development and design decisions, not who's paying for it.

[nikki]

As Melly said and I agree, being indie is about being in control of your game development and design decisions, not who's paying for it.

But the one who's paying for it obviously will have some control too, (think graphics, challenges, backend compatibilties, demographic choices, porting, marketing, localization, etc etc etc.)

I am all for people making money by doing what they love doing, but when they are dependant on others to be able to do that, I wouldn't want to call them 'independant'

[Alex May]

Day of Defeat, Portal, and Team Fortress all have indie roots.

Have to disagree on Portal - that was a team of students, not indie developers or modders.

A team of students who were independent, then later hired by Valve to make a full fledged game with their concept. Portal's roots seem pretty indie to me.

In what manner are Students independent? Especially in the USA.

[Martin 2BAM]

But the one who's paying for it obviously will have some control too, (think graphics, challenges, backend compatibilties, demographic choices, porting, marketing, localization, etc etc etc.)

Or not. http://www.indie-fund.com/

Usually it's only true to some degree, but if you talk about your game and get feedback and ideas you lose independency? That's not true, at the end you're the one accepting or disregarding the suggestions.

I am all for people making money by doing what they love doing, but when they are dependant on others to be able to do that, I wouldn't want to call them 'independant'

Well, that's just like saying:
"People depending on food to survive, I wouldn't want to call them 'independant'".

Also, you're dependant on other people buying what you love doing to make money.

In what manner are Students independent? Especially in the USA.

I believe you're missing the point.
Independency in ideas, control over your work.
It doesn't matter if your parents are paying college or you're taught what "games are about" (talking about DigiPen, Narbacular Drop>>Portal).

It's an individual's idea, even if the enviroment changes it. Otherwise only babies would be concidered indie

[AndySchatz]

from what i gather, they didn't sell EA the game or anything, they're just using EA to get the game on consoles; -- EA will doubtless get a lot of the profits of that, but they prolly wouldn't be able to get the game on consoles otherwise.

so it's really no worse (or better) than, say, nicalis porting cave story and la mulana to the wii, or publishing nifflas's night game for it.

This.

Klei is fairly large at this point, and they want to make sure they can make a lot of money on a game they feel is art.  I don't think they so much care about whether it's indie, as they do about making something they are proud of and that will reach a lot of customers.  EA is a tool towards that end.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

In what manner are Students independent? Especially in the USA.

I believe you're missing the point.
Independency in ideas, control over your work.
It doesn't matter if your parents are paying college or you're taught what "games are about" (talking about DigiPen, Narbacular Drop>>Portal).

It's an individual's idea, even if the enviroment changes it. Otherwise only babies would be concidered indie

actually in the US, if students make a game while enrolled in a game design school, the school owns the game, not the students. there was an issue with this related to the slamdance indie game festival: digipen refused to let two developers withdraw their games in protest of the banning of super columbine massacre rpg, and since the school technically owned the games, not the students, the students could do nothing.

[Martin 2BAM]

Wow, that sucks!

[Zaphos]

actually in the US, if students make a game while enrolled in a game design school, the school owns the game, not the students.

I think this is a digipen thing, not a US-in-general thing.