Notch: EA methodically destroying gaming

[adriane23]

zarx said:

adriane23 said:

The definition of an Indie anything isn't concrete/specific enough to be a real definition. All of the examples of what makes an indie game can be associated with several games that don't carry that label. And who decides what size a company has to be to still be considered Indie? It's too vague a definition.

All CAPS means yelling, italisizing means to add emphasis. I thought you were being a dick when you used all caps, so I took your post the wrong way.

I'm following the thread just fine, but I know you didn't mean that. Your feelings were just hurt. Heres a kitten, feel better?

How about this definition?

"it may refer to: Indie art, fine arts made by artists independent of commercial fine arts establishments"

or this one whic is more specific to games

"Independent video games (commonly referred to as indie games) are video games created by individuals or small teams without video game publisher financial support"

They are both pretty clear indie art/games is content that is not funded and/or supported by commercial entities. So by very deffinition the games that EA are selling as indie, aren't as almost all were funded by EA. 

Specifically talking about the indie label for games, the definition is too vague and subject to varying interpretations. What is the limit on team size? If Microsoft self publishes a game that has a team size of six people, does that make the game indie?

If you make a videogame, you're out to make money, because all games are commercial products. It's a good to be sold. Even free games get money from advertising.