The game title it self may remain an an indie production, but the actual game can be sold off and its rights given to publishers and thats where an indie stops being indie.
We talk about indie games, but its correct term would be an indie company or rather an independent company. That be it a sole developer or a few people. When that independent company starts to share it's production with another company, then it is no longer an independent company. Its turning point for most of them, is when they either hire in a 3rd party to do music or graphics, or they have a paid publisher either via sale percentage or rights to the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
"but the actual game can be sold off and its rights given to publishers and thats where an indie stops being indie."
But that's bullshit. The game was made by independent developers, thus the game is an "indie game".
In reality indie is a term more fit for companies than games though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Gaben basically owns the majority of Valve and Steam keeps them funded. They're comparable to EA, Activision, THQ, and so on thanks to Steam. In terms of income with the staff of 300 compared to a few thousand.
However I'm still curious on what defines indie truly. Scrap gave a good response below, but still not quite a definite answer. Then again there probably isn't one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe on PC, but on Xbox and PS3, EA publishes their games, right?
Comment has been collapsed.
Private corporations are not indie; that's idiotic unless you're willing to say some of the largest companies in the world are independent too. They still have shareholders. The stock just isn't publicly available.
Unless Koch Industries, QT, Publix, Hilton, etc. are all independent in your eyes.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's linked to the popularity of the company and its games. The ones who made The Binding of Isaac and Super Meat Boy don't have the power that big corps like Ubisoft or EA have, but they're not unknown any more either...
I think the price point of the games is a good indicator too. Indie Games are around 10$. Popular ones like Bastion and Super Meat Boy are greedier and are around 15$-20$ and I think that's a sign that they're not that indie anymore.
In reality it's all about the independence of the developpers, who are supposed to keep all the rights to their creation, but indie has also become a style... So the line isn't quite clear.
Comment has been collapsed.
The price of the game does dictate whether it is an indie game or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wasn't talking about games really. I guess I should have been clear in the title of the thread. I was talking about companies.
Comment has been collapsed.
Really?
You honestly think popularity and price make a game indie?
It refers to the funding of the developing company. If they are self-funded it would be indie ("independent"). The only point it gets tricky is when an "indie" company gets too large that it really shouldn't count as "indie" anymore (aka Valve).
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, yeah, because there is clearly abuse of the term right now and it's not about to stop. For me, and for a lot of people, indie is a concept mixing game style, quality, price and popularity of the designer.
Because otherwise, just like you say yourself in your last sentence, even big companies like Valve are indie. So what's the point of calling them indie, and calling any game indie if everybody does it? It won't be anything special. Might as well call them "games" instead of "indie games".
Soon even Call of Duty will be called indie because they were created by the almighty Activision's devs. Would anybody ever agree calling that indie? I think not...
Comment has been collapsed.
Indie games are normally at a lower price to encourage people to purchase it.
Nobody in their right mind will spend $60+ on a game made by a Game Developer that has no track record of games or experience with game developing. Indie games themselves are simply games developed out of the developers own pocket. No publishers/distributors. Although this does mean that technically companies like Valve and Mojang are indie, but because they are so well known throughout the gaming community many people consider them 'mainstream' which buries the indie status.
You could look at it as, widespread success and acknowledgement takes away the idea of an 'indie status,' even if that isn't correct by definition.
Comment has been collapsed.
As people write dictionaries and not the other way around new words often get thrown around in situations that suit them without anyone knowing where the exact limits are. So we are left to use our subjective minds to rehash some kind of overall definition that most agree upon.
Independent companies could be called low staffed, low budget, self funded (or public as is the case with Kickstarter) companies that create A or AAA titles.
Usually they create games the "old way". Meaning innovation and gameplay over graphics and scope as they can't possibly compete with the workforce of publishers and developers of big firms. Still if the game is unique enough they might strike gold even in heavily competed genres. On the other hand big firms can't actually risk with innovative and gameplay as if their AAA game fails to sell they might have to cut back on spending as the company might sink very fast.
Comment has been collapsed.
When the game isn't called "indie" anymore :3
Honestly, I have no idea.
Comment has been collapsed.
An indie company is a company who can publish games all by themselves, without a publisher. Valve is indie in a way because they make games and publish them on steam (on PC at least), there is no external publisher.
Comment has been collapsed.
When they start making games to make money instead of to create something to express themselves. A good example is Tim Schafer, the dude makes games for the same of making them and trying something new, not to make money. Making money is just an added bonus.
Comment has been collapsed.
Double Fine worked under publishers. Not that they're not indie, but just saying you couldn't call all their products 'indie' per se.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oddly enough, this reminds me of a story I heard a while back. The author was stating that some jobs just can't be done by robots/AI in the near or even distant future. His example was people who buy cotton wholesale. They would take samples of the raw cotton, feel it, smell it ect. then decide what sort of quality it was. When they were asked how they decided, they couldn't really say how they knew, they just knew.
Indie is a bit like that, you generally know when a game is indie, but it's hard to pin down what indie is.
(Oh, and if you're wondering, the author hypothisised that the cotton wholesalers were subconsiously measuing a whole variety (20+) of things, such as weight and texture, then brought all the information together without realising that's what they were doing. Frankly, I wasn't overly impressed with his example.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, really. "Indie" meant independent. Last time I checked Valve meets that criteria, but the word got skewed over the past few years where indie means 'retro' games, no publishers, smaller staff, etc etc.
Which goes back to the question "When does indie stop being indie?"
Comment has been collapsed.
yes because they are doing and publishing games by themselves.
Comment has been collapsed.
you do realize EA does that, too, don't you?
they have their own game studios whose games they publish, ... - I doubt anyone would call EA indie, tho :P
Comment has been collapsed.
but valve does not have shareholders. Its a private company, therefore yes, it is indie
Comment has been collapsed.
Indie is short for Independent, so technically it is.
Comment has been collapsed.
well in that case valve did not independently develop Countstrike,team fortress one or L4d but they are different then in EA then in that they promote indie development and modding; Id say EA sucks for buying companies and destorying them but vavle bought turrle rock didnt they? and im gald they did. EA orginally made 3rd partry games which are indepent from their platform but they wore always a corporation
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the term "indie" sould be only indicative of a business role, instead of a type of game creator/team. The only other thing separating them from bigger corporations is this: big companies don't like to take risks by releasing fresh ideas, so they stick with working formulas while indies are generally free to do anything (especially if the game is free) + the funding behind each, which is obvious.
Comment has been collapsed.
independent music used to mean artists who didn't rely on a label (publisher, marketer, distributor) to get their music heard. their fans, their families, and themselves are what got their music noticed (remember, this was tough to do before practical ways of delivering digital music existed).
pretty soon, independent labels were created. they had the same spirit of self-driven ways to get unknown artists heard, without relying on the "big" major labels. it made sense, since the indie label could handle all those sorts of tasks for multiple indie bands. it didn't really stop being indie, but it does slightly skew the original definition.
eventually... indie somehow became a genre. even if you're on a major label, you can have an "indie" sound. here, the definition is hugely skewed from the original intent, but... it's still "indie".
I think it's just important to determine which indie you mean when you're talking about indie, rather than say "this is indie, this isn't".
Comment has been collapsed.
When devs start to act like a "big bosses" of videogaming, attempting to take your money away from you via DLC and Collector's Edition stuff bullshit.
Comment has been collapsed.
For me, indie means independent, something made for a few persons (how less persons are involved, more indie is). Valve is a good example of no indie (wtf).
Also, in music for example, indie would be when a person make something that dont follow what the most of people do.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd say developers who can appeal more to a niche audience, and making profit doing so, instead of trying to streamline a game nobody knows about, as there are plenty others already.
That, and everything else "indie" already involves in it's meaning. (Budget, independence, and so on)
Comment has been collapsed.
10 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by miIk
21 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Seibitsu
1,765 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Seibitsu
3 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by lostsoul67
540 Comments - Last post 8 hours ago by Ledyba
47,106 Comments - Last post 9 hours ago by kbronct
49 Comments - Last post 9 hours ago by blueflame32
3 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by pingu23
27 Comments - Last post 30 minutes ago by xurc
8 Comments - Last post 37 minutes ago by Droj
794 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by JimLink
95 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Xeton99
2 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Zarddin
19 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Bum8ara5h
Serious question here. Last week I had a speaker that worked for videogaems for 30 years or something I don't recall visit one of my classes. He didn't know quite so himself considering companies like Valve, Hidden Path, and so on aren't really considered indie, but they are.. yet they're not. An in between if you would.
Comment has been collapsed.