Notch: EA methodically destroying gaming

[thetonestarr]

adriane23 said:

thetonestarr said:

adriane23 said:
Let me guess, this guy wears black rimmed eye-glasses, lives in coffee shops, and has an Apple logo tattooed on his neck. And what's the difference between an indie game company and a non-indie game company?

Indie companies are companies that do not have production companies (like EA) supporting them. They do their own work, making their own games, doing what they want to do without Big Brother watching over their back demanding certain things of them and threatening to cut their financial support if they don't perform the way they like to.

 

The people in here criticizing Notch and indie gaming are blind and haven't taken the time to know ANYTHING about the matter. Indie games have repeatedly time and time again changed gaming drastically. Nearly all the elements from Portal and Portal 2 come directly from indie games and companies. Minecraft was an indie game (I say "was" because Notch sees Mojang as too big a company now to qualify as indie anymore). World of Goo was indie. Braid was indie. The Bit.Trip games were indie. Super Meat Boy was indie. There's absolutely no possible argument that indie games don't do big things.

 

The simple fact that EA published these games automatically, by definition, means they're NOT "indie". If they ARE "indie", then so was Half-Life. Indie games CAN eventually find publishers, sure, but they're initially developed and put out without any separate publisher whatsoever, and for a PUBLISHER to advertise something THEY benefit financially from AS indie is, in every way, wrong.

 

As for the attacks against Notch, how many EA execs have donated every single penny they earned from their company in their most profitable year to their employees?

That's the dumbest thing I've read all week. If that's the only thing differentiating "indie" games from any other type of game, then it's pointless for any game to have that moniker. Lot's of developers backed by large publishers get to keep creative control (Games published by Atlus, Spike, NIS, Sony to an extent, etc.). Did you even read what you wrote? You're basically saying indie games are unique in some way because they're self published. If that's the case, Nintendo and Capcom have been making "indie" games for decades. And indie games drastically changed gaming? Last time I checked Braid and Super Meat Boy cloned and tweaked the Mario formula, just like pretty much all platformers after the 80's.

And to your last sentence. What does that have to do with the games they make? Not a God damn thing.

 

P.S. STOP intermittently YELLING at me. What the FUCK is WRONG with you?

P.P.S. Fuck Notch.

Lots of developers get backed by large publishers and get creative control, sure, but (1) not all of them do, (2) they still have Big Brother watching over their backs, and (3) not all devs can land worthwhile contracts with big publishers.

I like how you're attacking me for giving you the ACTUAL DEFINITION of the term "indie developer", like I'm the one that coined the term or something. Pay attention to the facts, kid. Nobody here was making stuff up. What I said above is the industry definition of an independent developer, or being independent PERIOD.

Nintendo, Capcom, and the lot don't count for the same reason Mojang doesn't count anymore - when you grow to a certain size, you surpass that.

Nobody said the last sentence had anything to do with the games they make. You're failing to follow the thread. If you can't follow a simple thread while at the same time resorting to childish personal attacks, don't take part. Nobody was attacking you. Nobody else was turning it personal. All-caps for single words here and there is called "emphasis". Go study a little bit of simple communication technique and calm down, dude.