No, indie is determined by the funding of the game, not the status of the studio - otherwise Ratchet & Clank would be an indie game. But you're right - Dust was released before XBLA allowed self-publishing so it is an indie game because it was self-funded

I don't think they ever went away, we just see less of them especially from major studios.

Oh for sure, and I'm of the opinion these are the best experiences in gaming right now. Millions of dollars in advertising budgets and staff in the hundreds do not a great game make.

The last few years have been dominated by Nintendo offerings -- relatively small scale and low-budget -- indie games like Rocket League, RIVE, and Severed, and humble projects from big-name developers, e.g. Song of the Deep and Resident Evil Revelations.

Yeah, some indies are allocating bigger budgets after successful games (SOMA, The Witness), Kickstarter and Japanese games making a comeback.

While these games may have had a AA budget(Sony internal know how sharing), I'd classify some of them as AAA quality.

AA games never really died, you're just not looking hard enough for them. Moderately-sized niches tend to spawn lots of these, too, whether they're JRPGs or GSGs.
I just have no idea how "A," "AA," and "AAA" games should be classified. What I can say, however, is that titles that may end up as AA on consoles end up as A-looking titles on handhelds.

Technicallythe Witcher series (at least the Witcher III), wich are definitely AAA titles are Indie games if I remember correctly. They are self published by CD Project red. It's the funding method that makes a game Indie or not. If it's self-funded or kickstarted it's indie.

And they've really risen to the cause and filled a lot of gaps in the gaming landscape.

You're right, it's like porn. But, going by that logic, nearly every release (ex-3DS) nowadays is AA.

Good observation.

CD Project doesn't count as indie as they are a publicly listed publisher.