While I agree that Notch is a pretentious asshole, he does have a point. EA are hardly known for being developer and consumer friendly and are known to aquire good studios only to dismantle them and waste their talent.

Seeing Notch called pretentious is so weird considering how he seems to be one of the most down to earth and honest guys in the industry. I always laugh how people talk about how pretentious indie devs are pretty funny, people like Jonathan Blow and Phil Fish are no more pretentious than people like Kojima, David Cage etc. They are just people like anyone else they all have opinions, prejudices and limitations, the only difference is that indie devs don't have PR departments trying, to make sure they don't say anything controversial.

Sure Notch went a little overboard in this instance, but hey, calling EA published games "indie" is a pretty cynical thing to do.

The op is forgetting other companies as well. Not only did EA destroy gaming, but Microsoft, Activision, and Capcom as well.

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. 

@italics. I agree with you.

For everything else, you're kind of missing the point. The idea is that indie developers aren't bound by business conquest as badly because they are usually led by folks with less means who really just want to bring something unique and new (kind of like emerging artists versus big labels).

Sure, there are always exceptions to the rules both ways, but ultimately, a gaming giant like EA "packaging" indie games makes it all too commercial once again, and just feels really out of place.

So the sentiment can't be too hard to understand.

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.

I'm not missing the point at all. The point that people are trying to make about indie games is pointless because they're no different from any other game.

"As badly...." Up to interpretation.

"Usually" Open to exceptions with said exceptions subject to interpretation.

"Really just want to" If you have to first figure out an author's intent before giving the lable, then the label has no meaning. Who decides on the author's intent. If a rep from TreyArch said they "really wanted to" bring something unique and new to gaming, are they on their to becoming indie? Shigeru Miyamoto really wanted to bring something unique and new with Mario and Zelda, does his intent make those games indie?

The more I hear from Notch the more I dislike him. He needs to get off his high horse. IMO, he just got lucky with Minecraft. He needs to come out with another successful game for his opinions to even matter. It makes me mad that people even care to write articles on what he thinks. He does not deserve the attention.

But seriously, what is he so mad about? What's wrong with EA releasing an Indie game bundle? How does that ruin gaming? Indie developers want to make money too. Isn't it a good thing if a publisher decides to help distribute an independently developed game?

The problem with him is that he thinks so highly of himself and his own opinions. Ultimately, the consumers shape an industry. EA is just giving consumers what they want. Notch probably thinks mainstream games don't properly reflect what gaming is about, and so big companies like EA are ruining the industry with these games. But that's just his opinion. He needs to accept the opinion of others. I personally prefer mainstream games. I've tried many highly acclaimed indie games and I get bored fast.

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.