zarx said:
adriane23 said:
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.
|
Bolded, obviusly not as it's development was funded by MS which is a videogame publisher.
it's not about intent to make money tho, the label is for games that are created without the backing of a publisher, what happens once they game is finnished has no baring. The part about small teams or individuals is more due to the fact that traditionally it is virtually impossible to make a game with a large team without the financial backing of a publisher, now that is changing with things like kickstarter but is still mostly true. I don't think there are any examples of any indie games created with with a team the size of a AAA game (which is 100+ this gen) anyway so that part of the definition doesn't really matter. So we are left with games that were not funded by a publisher which rules out games like Shank 2 which was commissioned by EA.
|
So if a small company self funds themselves, they're indie. If Microsoft self funds themselves, it's not indie event though they did it independently, because Microsoft publishes other games?
So if I bought an acre of land with my own money and used it to grow corn to sell at a marketplace, am I an indie farmer? Is the only think differentiating me from a mega farm the fact that I put up my own money? Am I not still doing the same thing, but at a smaller scale. And if I'm successful enough to expand my land to the size of a mega farm, am I then not considered indie because I'm too big???
Conlusion: The term "indie" is pointless.
