"Indie" WTF does that mean?

[Azimuth]

I'd caution against calling yourself an indie...

Are you truly independent of outside income? Are your games paying the bills? If not, then you're not an indie.

I think you'll find that indie devs are indie devs because they don't have financial backing from a publisher. Don't be elitist.

[dislekcia]

I think you'll find that indie devs are indie devs because they don't have financial backing from a publisher. Don't be elitist.

Derp derp. My personal opinion on a term which loads of people in the industry can't agree on, obviously. Yes, it's a complex thing, so far the best definition I've found is that indie developers earn the majority of their income directly from individual buyers of whatever they made. This ends up meaning that a publisher who takes money from people for a game and pays a developer on the back end invalidates the indie label, but something like Steam doesn't.

So where would you draw the line between hobbyist and indie dev? And is it a valuable distinction?

[Azimuth]

And is it a valuable distinction?

Nope. If you're making games on your own time and budget, you're an indie dev. You're still being elitist. Stop that.

[dislekcia]

Nope. If you're making games on your own time and budget, you're an indie dev. You're still being elitist. Stop that.

Elitism unintended. Please point out where I seem to value one more than the other?

What's wrong with distinguishing between games that are being built by people who aren't making a living doing it and ones that are? I find it a useful distinction because the people making a living are exercising a large number of different skills that simply don't come into the picture when you're a hobbyist dev. I'm not saying that one is better than the other in any way, just that they're different beasts and I have different interactions with hobbyists and indies.

I'm advising Eyeball not to call himself an indie - wait for other people to call you one. This tends to hold true for all labels that people aspire to... I can, for instance, now finally call myself an elitist ;)

[GeometriX]

Ah, here this is...

Oddly enough, I agree with Dis, but I can see why it comes across as elitist.

If I buy a game designed by an indie studio, I form a picture in my mind of a small, self-funded studio in a garage somewhere with people who work there full-time or at the very least depend on the income from this studio. It's their job. If their games don't sell, they don't eat. Automatically my expectations of the game are higher because I assume those developers will put in more effort to make their games good.

On the other hand, simply undefined game developers (let's say, "bedroom developers") are doing it for fun, they're learning, they're messing around with ideas because they can comfortably fail, move on and try something else. My expectations for a game developed by such a person (or group of people) is much lower. The game becomes more about sharing knowledge, criticisms and expertise than a straight-up buyer/seller arrangement.

Having said that, I'd never pay money for a game from the latter type of developer. Perhaps that's something that Eyeball should take into account. If I were developing games at the level of Eyeball's titles (which I don't think are good, for the record), I'd concentrate on getting feedback during development, sharing with communities, getting other people on board (artists in particular), and putting out a free product to get people's attention.

Back to the Minecraft reference, it started as a free concept, barely a game, that got people hooked. If Notch had tried to sell the original release of Minecraft, I doubt Mojang would have the success it has today. Pay attention to this, Eyeball.

[dislekcia]

Traditionally, the problem with most definitions of "indie dev" that people have suggested is that they don't manage to cover all the cases that people clearly think of as indie development.

Someone like Cactus, for instance, who is about as indie as all **** according to pretty much everyone who has an opinion on these things, isn't covered by most strict definitions. Just like most non-strict definitions tend to mean that anyone that isn't currently employed by a publisher and who might be thinking of writing Call of War XIV at some point is magically an indie developer.

I think it's pretty hard to come up with an accurate definition, but the main thing seems to be the expectation that being called "indie" by media and marketing sets up in the minds of players. It's like pornography: You'll know an indie game when you see it. Or maybe you won't, if you look at something like Half Life... Damn.

[dammit]

Azi, did you really just start a thread to pick a fight with Dis? Because that's what it looks like. I mean, really, who the **** cares?

[GeometriX]

This thread was created by Dis as a breakaway from another thread.

Did you really post just to start an argument based on the idea that nobody gives a ****, despite this distinction being something that at least three people actually do care about?

I believe the phrase "mind your own business" is pertinent.

[dammit]

Azi's post was first. My bad.

[dislekcia]

Azi, did you really just start a thread to pick a fight with Dis? Because that's what it looks like. I mean, really, who the **** cares?

Nah, I forked this thread out once it seemed like this line of conversation was going to go off topic in Eyeball's advice request thread. In fairness, Azi did just post in order to pick a fight with me anyway - it being it's own thread is rather moot, she didn't bother adding any other content ;)

This thread was created by Dis as a breakaway from another thread.

Did you really post just to start an argument based on the idea that nobody gives a ****, despite this distinction being something that at least three people actually do care about?

I believe the phrase "mind your own business" is pertinent.

I dunno, I'd argue that you and I at least care about the definition, given your structured thoughts. The way this thread has died points to it mostly just being a "hey look, a fight!" thing as far as I can see.

[BlackShipsFillt]

I think it's pretty hard to come up with an accurate definition...

It's quantified by their proclivity to leaving used pizza boxes around their workplace, qualified by the sparkle-intensity in their eyes, and their frequent use of sandal-type footware is a dead give-away. Also, Indies make self-promotional videos of themselves flumaging underwater. http://www.indiegamethemovie.com/



On the other hand you can spot a AAA developer by their raw, tie-sore neck-meats, their plaintive "why-me?" expressions and their all-consuming preoccupation with someday becoming indie (which is something both them and actual indies cannot stop talking about).

Hobbyists are really much the same as indies... except by day they are something else, going to school or university, working behind a desk, delivering your mail, cooking your food, attending secret fight-clubs, performing ritualistic murder-sacrifices etc.

[BlackShipsFillt]

Though seriously... I find the Hobbyist / Indie distinction quite useful.

Technically, being "independent" is kind of irrelevant if you aren't selling anyway (and so if you are doing it for fun then "indie" is kind of a misnomer)...

As a consumer I think it is fair to want to know who does it for a living and who is still learning or just having fun... (although by definition the hobbyist is not moneytising their work so the consumer perspective is kind of moot)

However... I don't like the term "hobbyist" at all... It kind of suggests that the person might have no ambition to become a professional or that being a professional game developer is something insurmountably hard that an average person could not ever teach themselves.

I guess "amateur" is an even worse term, because it suggests inferior quality... How about "indie-in-the-making" developers... much more positive though will never catch on...

Couldn't we make a distinction like: these are all indies and this subgroup are "professional indies and indie studios"? (and the "hobbyists" that way are just sort of "generic indies" and no one gets accused of "elitism")

[dammit]

I believe the phrase "mind your own business" is pertinent.

This I don't understand. Left it for a couple days and it's still bugging me. Is this not a forum? Was this not a public thread? Am I not a member of this forum? Why is it then not my business?

[dislekcia]

I guess "amateur" is an even worse term, because it suggests inferior quality... How about "indie-in-the-making" developers... much more positive though will never catch on...

What about under-development indies, or undies for short? ;)

[Nemeses]

"Indie" means individual. Such as you are not coding with a team or company behind you.

[BlackShipsFillt]

Doesn't "Indie" originally come from "Independent" and therefore includes everyone who is self-published?

This makes the term "Indie" kind of archaic, since the developer-publisher role has drastically changed over the last decade, and being self-published or not published by a major publisher is a very arbitrary distinction. (I mean... EA proudly publishes mobile physics-puzzlers now while many other publishers are just a guy with a name.)

That said I'm quite happy to call Indies who only make games on the side "Undies", and the games that they produce "Under-Ware".

[Chippit]

That said I'm quite happy to call Indies who only make games on the side "Undies", and the games that they produce "Under-Ware".

Somebody give this man a medal.

[BlackShipsFillt]

Somebody give this man a medal.

lol, technically it is Dislekcias's meme.

Though it could get confusing e.g. when people start holding "Underware Jams" and "Conferences for breaking into the industry aimed at undies".

[dislekcia]

I would so go to Underware Jams, just to confuse people that followed me on twitter...

[SkinkLizzard]

we should have more Underware prototype competitions.