Developers are thinking AAA development very risk and jumping to risk free Indie Development [AAA games doomed]

[aryu]

Wright said:

aryu said:

What doesn't make sense? I'm taking into consideration ALL costs!
I just checked that marketing and distribution costs and that amounted to $40million dollars with the game development only costing $12 million so Sony paid 77% of the total costs (assuming they paid for all the marketing and distribution). In that sense, Heavy Rain was backed by Sony considering how much Sony poured in to get it to the market.

I quoted the words of David Cage himself stating that he did indeed make an indie game.

 

Let's think outside the box, and instead of using games, let's use movies for an example.

 

Is Nebraska an indie movie? It was done by an indie producer and later published by Paramount. Of course, the job of advertising goes to Paramount, which makes the cost go higher. My question is, DOES NEBRASKA STOP BEING AN INDIE MOVIE?

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/12-years-a-slave-and-nebraska-lead-indie-spirit-awards/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

It doesn't.

 

Neither Heavy Rain stops being an indie game.

At this point, the argument is revolving around the definition of indie. We clearly do not share the same view of what an indie game is. For me, whenever a publisher heavily backs a game whether it be in development or in marketing, I don't consider it as indie.