Well, its not easy to replicate every game to be liked by everyone and be very simple in developing games. Every developer ideas are very differnet and some of the developers got the ideas which can be liked by most and they made huge profits but some failed which lead to their downfall but they worked very hard for us and its not in a way they made worst game(if they did they have to) and its an average one, so they should get some suppot for the hard work which is not happening right now because the way a gamer thinks has been changed on buying games recently after the Mobiles games prices and steam deals which is hurting console AAA development for the developers to sustain. They are going to Indie platform where they can be their boss and earn more profits in risk free way. If this happens more in future then we won't having any AAA games and Consoles for them to play. Most of the games from the future will be only F2P and Download only Indie games and next gen consoles(with more power) which plays AAA games won't there because we don't need such power for most of the Indie games.

Gamers aren't supporting that? Says who?

No, they're not indie since Sony is funding the game.

That doesn't make sense whatsoever. If you're up to admit that a game can be indie with a publisher, why wouldn't the publisher advertise the game? To bomb hard in the market like Puppeteer?

Indie game = A game developed by an indie studio without any external funding during development. Is that hard to understand? Heavy Rain was built from scratch on the Quantic Dreams headquarters. When the game was finished, Sony published.

Are you telling me that from the moment Sony publishes the game, the project suddenly "loses its indie status"? And by the way, Indie is merely a word, even if its overrated nowadays by people's criteria.

They do for some but they did not do sales to be very successful and take more chances by the developers(its risky). Look at Remember me, Beyond two souls, Tearaway, Puppeteer, Wonderful 101 etc.,

What doesn't make sense? I'm taking into consideration ALL costs! and yes as soon as a publisher financially supports a game more than required, it loses its indie status.
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.

Its common sense, nobody will agree without any money after developing the game from the sales until the game return the money.  They should atlteast get the salary for making the game and small percentage(like 10%) from the sales until it turns to profit. Also sony is not such a companay to make the developers get no money after developing the game and wait for the game to turn profit.

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.

You should have read Aryu's source, before. He proved that Heavy Rain was indeed funded by Quantic Dream and Quantic Dream alone. Sony only paid for the publishing and marketing.

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.