next »

[Tumetsu]

I checked this thread when it didn't have any comments and was about to post joke post about "Let's discuss the meaning of indie, and define it once and for all!" but apparently it wasn't needed

To share my view on the topic I personally still think "indie" as mostly same as "independent" but also recognize that it has started to get other qualifies for it and the word has started to live its own life from independent.

Hating on this bundle because "it's mainstream" is hipster bullshit, imo, and the same hate should apply to the HIB too, then.

I don't think anyone here at least has been hating it because it is "mainstream".

[Fallsburg]

@Manuel Magalhaes: Because you made a definitional argument and then just asserted it as fact. That's why.

Maybe independent and indie mean different things to you, but that doesn't mean they will to everyone.

And in the end, it's a meaningless discussion.  There is always going to be some counterexample to any single definition of "indie" that is going to piss someone off.  

For example:
"An indie/independent game developer is just someone who makes + publishes games, independent of a publisher. self published. free from outside sources which may damp the creativity coming from the developers. They're one and the same to me."

EA is such an entity.  They produce and develop their own games.

[Theophilus]

i disagree there, because EA developers do not make the games they want to make (or if they do, WHY). They make games that they are told to make, because it will sell well.

Ah well, just another facet of the polygonal ball of defining indie.

[_Tommo_]

I don't think anyone here at least has been hating it because it is "mainstream".

well, people are hating because it's EA, and EA is the definition of mainstream

[Manuel Magalhães]

Indie, independent. Indie is derived from independent. The words have the same definition to me.

An indie/independent game developer is just someone who makes + publishes games, independent of a publisher. self published. free from outside sources which may damp the creativity coming from the developers. They're one and the same to me.



Also how did you prove it just by saying it? That would be a nice superpower to have...

So you are considering that EA, Capcom and Activision indie. Which is far off of what people think of what is "indie". Hence the necessity of each word.
Also what I said is proof, just not much of a proof than the Oxford Dictionary, but a better argument that your "taht stupid, lol".
Warning - while you were typing 2 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
@Fallsburg Ok, point given. Being "independent" can mean more than "free of publisher" to some, so I did wrong on saying it was an absolute definition. That said, I still can see how the two words are used in different ways, even if both can be adjusted, so to speak.

[Fallsburg]

i disagree there, because EA developers do not make the games they want to make (or if they do, WHY). They make games that they are told to make, because it will sell well.

Ah well, just another facet of the polygonal ball of defining indie.

Well, where do you draw the line?  I mean, there has to be at least one developer at EA that is psyched to be making the game that they are making. Maybe they all do (I agree with you, "WHY?").  I'm just saying there is no way to make this definition something definitive.

I know that this is a card that gets played a fair amount in definitional arguments but:
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ['hard-core pornography']; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
—Justice Potter Stewart

I'm pretty sure that all of us could pick an "indie" game out of a line-up, but I doubt that there will ever be a definition that could reach consensus.

[Tumetsu]

I don't think anyone here at least has been hating it because it is "mainstream".

well, people are hating because it's EA, and EA is the definition of mainstream

Well, perhaps, it probably depends on how one sees it. Personally I don't "hate" this bundle, EA etc. but I find it a bit ironic how EA and word "indie" are bundled together (pun intended ). I still like "mainstream". For stupid analogy I'd find it a bit ironic/funny if McDonald's burgers were advertised as gourmet high class dinners, while I still like McDonald's burgers and high class gourmet dinners once in a while

I see this definition discussion a rather futile (even more futile than is games art one), since clearly word "indie" has/is going under some kind of cultural transition. Yes, it started from synonym of independent but over time it has gained a slightly new meaning. Like usual with words, it tends to be futile to try to lock them into some arbitrary definition by force. Words change over time.

[dota_mtdew]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grunge_speak

[eld]

For me it isn't the fact that there's a publisher there, it's the fact that when signing a publishing deal, the developer will have to sacrifice elements that he/she would not have otherwise wanted to, such as platform exclusivity, publishing exclusivity, what drm to include or not.

Things like this was the reason developers moved away from the publishers to begin with when becoming independant,

Then the very fact that EA uses indie while pushing very consumer-unfriendly perks on top of their releases is pretty insulting to it, EA decides things that when the signature is on the contract the developers will have no say in.

[Hangedman]

EA Formerly Indie Bundle

 

[eiyukabe]

More important than quote "what "indie" means" quote quote quote blah blah.... is the utility of separating ourselves from the publishing model. It's not about mainstream, maybe a lot of people here are too young to remember but indie has always meant independent from publishers. Even when it became shorthand. I know it gets fuzzy because "what if a publisher publishes their own game? are they indie?" etc, and I say no because there is a separate arm over the development team that has more power than the development team. It's the same model, it's just a publisher within a publisher. I know, I worked in that sort of environment at Namco Bandai America a couple of years ago, and the development team was dragged left and right and told what to do and when to crunch and they were all laid off after Splatterhouse bombed because of management fuck ups.

Let me distinguish further.

To keep the utility of the word "indie", I would say that Valve games are indie because developers have power there (read their leaked employee handbook to see just how much power) and conversely no game with EA's label on it is indie. Even if it was made by a development team at EA, their bureaucracy holds all the power so that the dev team has little more creativity or control than a completely separate entity and will likely be gutted at the end of the project (friend of a friend got fired from EA because he refused to work one weekend when his girl was in town -- does that sound "indie", having your own time dictated for you?). Even if someone makes a game completely on their own and then EA simply bundles it with their label, it is no longer indie because EA is helping them with one of the hardest parts (marketing) by providing a recognizable label, and simultaneously profiting from a percentage or at the very least spreading their brand like the cancer that it is.

Ok, so what's the big deal with the "EA Indie Bundle"? Why should we care? If you are a hobbyist developer, you probably don't need to care that much (unless you plan to become a professional developer in the future). But if you are an indie developer that relies on your games selling to make a living, this is obviously an attempt to dilute the "indie" brand. What's next, an Activision Indie Bundle? Zynga? If the indie label continues to become diluted, indie developers will lose one of the only things they have to keep their company profitable and compete with the big guys; the trust we have developed and put into that label for decades. Would you rather live in a future where you control your destiny and the games you make, or one where you have to go through publishing gatekeepers that dictate everything that goes in your game and then kicks you to the curb with no future royalties when they don't need you? Guess which future the publishers are fighting to create.

[Christian Knudsen]

If the indie label continues to become diluted, indie developers will lose one of the only things they have to keep their company profitable and compete with the big guys; the trust we have developed and put into that label for decades.

Only indie developers care about this so-called indie label. Players care about a good game and feeling like they have some sort of relationship with the people making it. The "indie" label is entirely overrated and it becoming diluted will only affect those making crap games and trying to excuse that by slapping "indie" on them.

[eiyukabe]

Only indie developers care about this so-called indie label. Players care about a good game and feeling like they have some sort of relationship with the people making it. The "indie" label is entirely overrated and it becoming diluted will only affect those making crap games and trying to excuse that by slapping "indie" on them.

That's idealistic but simply not true. Branding matters. If McDonalds opened a restaurant but called it by a different name and didn't associate it with their brand, do you think they would get as many customers, even if they make the exact same food?

Branding shouldn't matter over quality, but since it does, and since corporations use it to their advantage, indie developers do the same. I really wish quality was all that it took to sell a game, but how is someone going to know how good your game is without knowing it exists?

[Christian Knudsen]

"Indie" is nowhere near as powerful a brand as McDonalds. And you're comparing apples with oranges. You'd be better off comparing to other artistic/entertainment products, not mass-produced burgers. Branding is a lot more important when you're trying to sell the same product over and over.

Indie isn't even a "brand" that most gamers care about or are aware of. They buy their games through Steam or XBLA or whatever. Most of the time they don't even know who made the game. Again, the people that care most about the indie brand or label is indie developers -- and they can't even fucking decide on what it means.

[Alevice]

A brand normally in the so called indie scene is the devloper itself. cactus, edmund, fish, etc

[eiyukabe]

It's a matter of degrees, but the same principle. Obviously if EA released a game called Minecraft 2 that would be worse (and trademark infringement), but it's the same principle of deceptive marketing by taking advantage of the good will and trust built between consumers and your competition. It's also lying for any reasonable definition of "indie"; if we just say that words are completely malleable then our discussion and all others we will have become useless. How can consumers make informed decisions when they are being lied to? And even if there is only one person that buys games based on them being indie or at least published by an ethical company (I do so I know that's at least one), then it is wrong to make such a lie as it affects a purchaser's buying decisions through deceit. Unless you believe that literally no one uses the "indie" label as a criterion for purchase, then this is wrong.

I mostly disagree with the apples to oranges claim, but I do see what you're saying. I think this is a close enough comparison and I don't know much about other creative industries to have an intelligent discussion, but I believe the same thing happens in other industries (large record labels buying indie labels and continuing to market them as indie for PR reasons, large internet porn labels using the "amateur" or "girl next door" label when independent pornstars started carving a niche, etc). If this is worth further discussion (and for my own education) I will look into independent film and independent music scenes to see how similar such occurrences are.

Anyway, the reason it concerns me is because I feel strongly that publishers, large movie distributors, large porn sites, large record labels, etc, are bad for creators in the long run, and we should really be trying to remove the publisher overhead so we can have more stable jobs, have more creative control over our IP, reap more of the reward (and yes, we would also have to take more of the risk but if we aren't competing with other games backed by publisher steroids, those risks would be lessened). I also believe that better games would be made in general. I don't believe that the "free market" will reward good games fully, though that happens to a small extent, because you always have the situation where the big guy out-markets the little guy regardless of game quality (publishers threaten sites that give their game bad reviews, fly reviewers to nice resorts to try to improve their score in ways that don't reflect what the user will experience, etc). So I guess I don't like anything that can make EA money as I feel their existence is evil, but I find this particularly repugnant in the same way as a fat american seeing that there is some rice in Africa that starving Africans have cultivated and trying to take it.

[Blademasterbobo]

dear lord this is the dumbest discussion i've ever seen

[ink.inc]

are you suuuuuuuuuure 

[Blademasterbobo]

yuuuuuuuup

[InfiniteStateMachine]

klei founders opinion:

http://www.diygamer.com/2012/05/shank-dev-ea-indie-bundle-is-a-confusing-name-but-applauds-eas-support/