So here's the thing.
It seems to me that the way to get the tag of "Indie" is to come from
- A "small" studio/team
- Have a limited budget to make your game
- Be digitally released
- And have it released for a cut down price (I.e not your usual £40/$60 fare).
But it got me thinking. If a game fits into those above categories, it's usually expected to not sell a huge amount but what about the ones that do go on to make more than "£10" in profit?
I ask this question with Minecraft in mind. We all know that game has probably made enough money to run a small country but yet people still refer to it as "indie". Yes it fits into the points above but does it/should it stop bearing that name?
Normally when people think of "indie" it's usually a game that only a handful of people will like, won't get a large amount of sales and within 2months of release is soon forgotten.
But here we have games like Minecraft. When it was announced for the 360, there was a huge fanfare and merriement, ones usually reserved for "AAA" games (I REALLY hate that phrase) isn't there some kind of disconnect between the "image" of indies and the amount of hype that games like Minecraft can demand?
I mean, I'm willing to bet that there are copious amount of "AAA" games that would sell their 1st born for the amount of hype/revenue/sway that Minecraft has. But yet we still call these kind of games "Indie".
No idea why really but I feel that at one stage or another, we have to start calling them something else.











