Notch: EA methodically destroying gaming

[adriane23]

zarx said:

adriane23 said:

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.

Is there such a thing as an indie farm? I don't think anyone is calling any farms "indie farms".

Anyway as the term indie by deffinition the term is a game not funded by a publisher, so no a publisher like MS or EA can't make an indie game, if they could every game would be indie. The who point of the label is to make the destinction, that the game is not funded by a publisher, I don't see why you can't grasp that other than to try and make a point. 

So using Mojang for example Minecraft was an indie game, Notch made it on his own time with his own money, meaning he made it "indipendently from a publisher. But Mojang doesn't make indie games anymore because they are now a publisher themselves since they decided to publish Cobolt.

The term indie is largely arbitary but only pointless if companies like EA can call their own games indie, which is just an oxymoron. 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just missed the point of my analogy. The distinction is pointless. They make games to sell for profit.