Technically speaking, yes. The game loses it's indie tittle and becomes a just a game. Like I mention in my previous post, it doesn't matter how many people were involved in the project.

Independent video games (commonly referred to as indie games) are video games created by individuals or small teams generally without video game publisher financial support. Indie games often focus on innovation and rely on digital distribution. Indie gaming has seen a rise in the latter half of the 2000s decade, primarily due to new online distribution methods and development tools.

Some indie games have become very successful financially, such as Braid,World of Goo and Minecraft.

I would agree, even-though technically it has a huge publisher behind it.

I think it more to do with creative control.  Like how Lucile Ball (Lucy) personaly decided to fund Star Trek, and later Paramount came in and made huge major movies out of it. 

And you agree with that definition?

Well. People here don't agree with you. We have a definition problem.

Braid was funded by the creator, Jonathan Blow, during three years. I don't know if the amount of money he poured into it made it AAA, but he did spend huge quantity of monies.

A slightly derogatory term for a native of India.

This is confusing, but at least you prove me that there's a misconception about the term nowadays.

AndrewWK and CGI-Quality have a similar definition. And like CGI-Quality said, the publisher makes all the difference. 

"Developers not owned by a publisher... Independent developers retain operational control over their companies, pipelines, and organizations."

Indie can use a publishers but not make a contract that have control over your "works".