Is “Indie” an Abused Label?
A recent conversation with RetroGamerProblems on Twitter brought up an interesting topic for me: labeling yourself as an “indie” designer/studio.
First, we have to ask ourselves what this label means, exactly. Does it mean simply that you are operating on your own, outside of the influence (monetary or otherwise) of a major “AAA studio?” Does it mean that you are simply a small-time development team operating with a limited (or none at all!) budget? Is it a combination of those two conditions, or maybe something else entirely?
Regardless of your answers to those questions (they seem to be rather subjective anyway), it seems to me that there are quite a few people who self-label (or get labeled) as indie developers when in fact they really aren’t indie at all. While a group like Rovio may have been considered “indie” when they first developed and released their smash hit Angry Birds, it would seem quite unfair to label them as indie now, no matter how small they are as a company. In that example, they’ve created a franchise that is wildly successful, made tons of money, and even have licensing deals from big metaverses like Star Wars. Yet, there are some out there who would insist that they are still indie. Another problem is when a small team is actually backed by a major development studio, and despite the fact that the team itself is small and may still be operating under a more limited budget, they effectively are kind of like a shadow group for a larger corporation that’s trying to squeeze into the indie scene.
This problem is compounded further by the fact that people often seem to treat indie games like they are gems to behold, yet using this label doesn’t mean that your game is great. Sure, only three people worked on the game, but does that mean I should give it a free pass when the game itself stinks? Why should I, especially when small teams or even solo-designers are pumping out high quality titles like Mega Man Unlimited or, as a more apt example, Street Fighter X Mega Man – a game that was given the official thumbs-up by Capcom itself.
I’d really like to see us reach a point where we weren’t constantly abusing the “indie” label, yet I know it is wishful thinking right now. Still, I wonder what you guys think! 🙂
Ive had this argument many times and ive always felt it boils down to the original idea. Developed and released ‘indepenantly’, as in not under the umbrella of a publisher. Pure and simple
So, for your definition, you are saying an indie game is one that is, for lack of a better term, “self-published” as opposed to getting a large company to back you? No matter the size of the team?
But what about a small team of people that makes a game and then a publisher wants to pick them up? Are they still indie, or no?
I’d say no. they loose the indie brand after a big publisher picks up the IP. Its as Ryu says a game that is self developed, and released.
Pretty much. You can have a team of 5 or 500 size is irrelevant. What is relevant is how your funded and published. If you fund and publish yourself your indy.
Lets say you and 100 mates make a game, you get funding from government, kickstarter, venture capital etc etc, and publish the game yourself, then you’d be indy.
Take the same concept, make it a single guy working alone. EA comes along and likes his idea, give him a bucket load of money but he still self publishes. In this case he’s no longer indy as his funding came from a publisher.
Go back to my first example and just before release EA buys the company and publishes it under their label. In this scenario its harder to define, but my gut instinct is to say they’re no longer indy. As I can see money that came from EA being used to market the game and support it long after release.
In short what it boils down to is simple, no publisher involvement on any level = indy.
If an indy company is bought up by EA they’re no longer indy. Anything pre buy out is indy, but anything post buy out isnt.
Something that came up on a recent podcast with Q was this: What about publishing venues like Steam and Desura? Desura in particular, which caters to the “indie” scene. Basically, my understanding is that to be on Desura, you would go through a process similar to a Steam Greenlight, and then you would sign an agreement whereby Desura hosts your game and takes XX% of the profit, and you get the rest (since they are hosting the game on their servers and advertising it, etc).
If you post your game on Desura and they “publish” it for you, are you still indie, or is the fact that they are handling distribution for you (at a cost to you/your profits) something that makes you no longer indie (in which case it would defeat the purpose of Desura being an indie distributor).
Desura and steam arent publishers, they’re delivery platforms. Calling them a publisher is like calling gamestop a publisher. Steam and desura are nothing more than a store front, same as gog, gmg, or gamersgate
Right, that topic came up in the podcast but Q argued that if you got a deal on Steam that made you no longer indie 😛
By that argument any developer who uses ANY store font, including the likes of PayPal, Skrill, CCBill etc etc would lose their ‘indy’ label since those sites also take a cut.
Steam. Gamers Gate, GMG, GoG are all nothing more than store fronts, like EB,Tesco, and GameStop. The only difference is that Steam and the others are virtual and have shitty customer service
Rather off topic on the general discussion of what makes an indie dev indie, but one thing I’ve noticed here and there, not just on the hive that is 4chan, is there is some amount of mindset nowadays that indie games in general are crappy or poorly made. Granted, I’ve seen indie games that were less than stellar and that I’d definitely avoid, but the idea that just because it’s independently developed makes it trash is rather much.
As far as labeling and self-labeling goes, Ryu already said everything I could’ve thought of and then some.