next »

[lobstersteve]

When turning a profit outweighs creating an experience.

yeah, pretty much that

[starsrift]

on the PC, the publisher is nearly eradicated - or rather, the publishers are Steam and GOG. All publishers do these days is offer advertising/marketing

publishers fund development. that seems like a pretty huge deal to me.

When you're not proven AAA, even publishers want to see a kickstarter to gauge interest on their investment. (see: Hideo Kojima)

CA, I hear where you're coming from, but this argument interests me as much as a bank loan. (read: no interest at all)

[joseph ¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

on the PC, the publisher is nearly eradicated - or rather, the publishers are Steam and GOG. All publishers do these days is offer advertising/marketing

publishers fund development. that seems like a pretty huge deal to me.

When you're not proven AAA, even publishers want to see a kickstarter to gauge interest on their investment. (see: Hideo Kojima)

CA, I hear where you're coming from, but this argument interests me as much as a bank loan. (read: no interest at all)

Funding development is a preposterous thing to dismiss unless you have either never made a game or encountered money.

idk arguing over indie is silly, 'independent of any major company' is a pretty simple rule, and then defining a 'major company' is a lil more complicated (but still like, pretty easy, and adjusts nicely with the times.) The only reason to argue over indie beyond that is posturing or shit talking.

[quantumpotato]

I would argue that indie is short for independant, and the moment your game's design is influenced significantly by a publisher or investor for the sake of profit, then it ceases to be indie in my book. Then again, that's just my personal definition, and I definitely tend to argue about meaningless semantics (screenshot Saturday).

Here are some examples.

pure indie: Cave Story, Spelunky, Minecraft(originally)

pure AAA: anything with boobs, fanservice or vestigial features from previous entries in a series, like DOA volleyball, Hyrule Warriors and Assassin's Creed.

These are loose examples though, so take them with a grain of salt.

That's my definition -- is the production dictated by the developer themselves-- they are "independent" or must they comply the design to some sort of design?

I don't consider raising money as non-independent if the design remains unaffected.

[quantumpotato]

pigscene was right about everything

Damn. Indie bingo has "use z & x".. I showed a friend Warning Forever recently and they were asking "What are the controls? (space wasn't working)." "Oh, these games usually use z & x, try that..". Thanks for the laugh.

Personally I tend not to differentiate betwen an "indie" game and "mainstream" or "AAA" game.. instead I look at how much does the game respect me as a player (spamming me with IAP, responsive controls, fluid vs overbearing tutorial) and are they carving new ground or doing the best job ever in chosen_mechanics. I could hardly care who made it or what funding they received; if the gameplay's good it's good.

[2mass]

I could hardly care who made it or what funding they received; if the gameplay's good it's good.

Of course, but given that I'm resource handicaped compared to Bethesda or EA games, then I want my 'indie' tag handicap-points for myself.

[Lars3n95]

For me it is, if you are earning your "main money" from this. So if it is more than a hobby and if you do it professional.

[quantumpotato]

For me it is, if you are earning your "main money" from this. So if it is more than a hobby and if you do it professional.

Doesn't indie just mean "independent" though? It sounds like you're equating indie to mean non-professional.

[Sik]

Yeah that sounds more like the limit for "amateur", not "indie" (in particular, the latter usually refers to doing it commercially).

[s0]

Yeah that sounds more like the limit for "amateur", not "indie" (in particular, the latter usually refers to doing it commercially).

Oh man I swore I wasn't going to argue the minutiae of "indie" in this thread, but I have to say something about this.

Hobbyist devs were included under the "indie" umbrella from the start. In the late 00s, the most popular indie game that everyone on TIG looked up to was Cave Story, a freeware game. And if you look at when the frontpage was still active, there was always a good balance of commercial and noncommercial games.

[Lars3n95]

For me it is, if you are earning your "main money" from this. So if it is more than a hobby and if you do it professional.

Doesn't indie just mean "independent" though? It sounds like you're equating indie to mean non-professional.

Yes I know but what does independent mean in developing? Aren't the Angry Birds developer independent too?

[ｂ∀ ｋｋｕｓａ]

Angry Birds devs were indie before 2009 (or around 2005). Once the terms company ceo and stuff start being part of their team, that's probably where indie shouldn't be used anymore.

buy yeah. technically they are indie (independant)

[Sik]

Oh man I swore I wasn't going to argue the minutiae of "indie" in this thread

Dude, that's like the whole point of the thread.

[s0]

i know

[Landshark RAWR]

when i become a bitter jealous asshole

[chances_r]

when i become a bitter jealous asshole

That's actually a sub-genre of Indie.  The sub-genre are usually (in chronological order):

- starry-eyed indie (aspires to create great RPGs)
- struggling indie (in development, not yet released a game)
- bitter indie (game released, but widely ignored)
- post indie (working at McDonalds after being kicked out by parents)

[starsrift]

on the PC, the publisher is nearly eradicated - or rather, the publishers are Steam and GOG. All publishers do these days is offer advertising/marketing

publishers fund development. that seems like a pretty huge deal to me.

When you're not proven AAA, even publishers want to see a kickstarter to gauge interest on their investment. (see: Hideo Kojima)

CA, I hear where you're coming from, but this argument interests me as much as a bank loan. (read: no interest at all)

Funding development is a preposterous thing to dismiss unless you have either never made a game or encountered money.

idk arguing over indie is silly, 'independent of any major company' is a pretty simple rule, and then defining a 'major company' is a lil more complicated (but still like, pretty easy, and adjusts nicely with the times.) The only reason to argue over indie beyond that is posturing or shit talking.

Not my point.
If everything that isn't owned by a publisher is crowdfunded, or at least partially so, that takes a lot of decision-making power out of the publisher's hands, and they cannot really employ the same sort of control that they used to.
So as far as being "indie" goes, which is to say independent of having artistic decisions forced on a project, the publisher's investment coin is not a weighty argument like it was 10 or 15 years ago, though I'm sure there's still a few that are in the position of being pushed around.

[notrodta]

To me, an indie is no longer indie when it's no longer personal to you. It needs to come out of you and show who you are through your indie game

[LNitewing]

There was a time when I considered indie to be without a publisher.

Now days I view indie as independent. To me, it doesn't matter how the game is funded or if they have a publisher, but that the final decisions ultimately lie with the developers themselves. I tend to throw out the term 'AAA' fairly often in comparisons by which I generally mean those really development teams largely controlled and funded by publishers that might haunt the scene. 

Essentially I would ask the question, "Are you just the publisher's plaything?" If the answer is yes then you probably aren't "indie" as in independent. 

[s0]

If everything that isn't owned by a publisher is crowdfunded, or at least partially so, that takes a lot of decision-making power out of the publisher's hands, and they cannot really employ the same sort of control that they used to.
So as far as being "indie" goes, which is to say independent of having artistic decisions forced on a project

you are overestimating the power of crowdfunding. it's almost impossible to crowdfund a game beyond a certain budget. even the biggest kickstarter videogame successes are still mid-budget games at best and many of them have to secure additional funding outside of KS. add to this the fact that because kickstarter is usually treated as a kind of glorified preorder, the people funding you are also directly cutting into your sales.

besides, crowdfunding comes with its own set of restrictions to creative freedom. instead of having to deal with publisher requests, you have to cater to the "the community".

the fact that publishers use kickstarters to gauge interest doesn't take away from the power of publishers at all.