Back in the pre-internet / download store days of the Console 'Bit' Wars, the way we bought and enjoyed games could not have been more different. Video games were expensive store purchases, and often you'd rely on renting games that you couldn't afford or couldn't 'commit' to buying. No downloads, not many discounts, and the market meant that a relatively small number of companies held all the cards.
Releasing a game aspiring to sales success in the '90s, for example, was a logistical challenge that only the big publishers could handle. There was manufacturing, distribution, retail, all steps in the process that required staff, contacts, and large amounts of money. Like anything else in the entertainment industry back then, there were multiple gatekeepers and locked doors if you didn't have corporate weight and resources. Nintendo was certainly one of those gatekeepers, with a draconian licencing arrangement that ultimately drove several companies away to work with Sony when PlayStation launched in the mid-'90s.
Nowadays a game can be made by a few people, released with little help and sell hundreds of thousands, even millions, of copies. This is a recent development too, in the broader picture, over the course of little more than a decade. Back in 2012 'Indie Game: The Movie' captured attention because it went behind the scenes and showed some of the early trailblazers and their — at the time — shocking success, namely Team Meat with Super Meat Boy , Number None with Braid, and Polytron with Fez. There were other early successes, of course, but those examples in particular showed a wide gaming audience — and a growing community of small developers — just what was possible.
The term 'Indie' made sense at that point — after all, it's short for 'independent'. These really were individuals and small teams going it alone, then being courted by platform holders like Xbox, Nintendo and Sony as it became clear that relatively new download stores needed interesting games to lure players in. On top of that, these independent developers were producing the sorts of games a lot of people hadn't seen before: small, clever, sometimes emotional and, above all, impactful. Not having a big budget didn't mean that the actual gameplay experience couldn't be enthralling. It seems obvious now, but go back over a decade and this felt like a revelation.
Not having a big budget didn't mean that the actual gameplay experience couldn't be enthralling.
This was, in reality, a progression towards the mainstream for a scene that always existed in gaming but rarely had a chance to shine. 'Bedroom coders' really gave birth to the industry on pre-NES gaming systems, and the PC / early internet scene was a home for these sorts of games. What was changing was the fact that the most powerful gatekeepers of all, console platform holders, were now interested in these small, independent teams and their intriguing games.
Now, we still have some of these Indies today; small teams producing amazing games that become hits, doing so on their own. That group of talent that goes it truly alone is still out there, and it's remarkable.
Over the last decade, though, we've seen the rise of Indie publishers, too. While a lot of download-only or smaller games still don't get picked up and supported by the big players of the traditional retail scene, a new side to the business has given rise to these publishers of download-only games, and of course limited release physical editions.
These publishers naturally vary wildly in size and resources; in some cases they put up significant amounts of money to help a small game evolve and reach the next level. In other cases they just focus on all the stuff some developers can't or don't want to tackle - marketing, PR, quality assessment, and the nitty gritty of submitting and releasing a game on a platform like the eShop. The idea is similar to those all-powerful publishers of the '90s, but typically the sums of money are lower and it's a largely digital undertaking for most smaller games. Smaller and more flexible, a natural evolution in the internet age.
Now, however, popular use of 'Indie' as a term has evolved to the point where it doesn't really mean 'independent' by any sensible metric. Nintendo's Indie World broadcasts are an example — some of the publishers involved have included Thunderful, Devolver Digital, Team17 and even Konami. To say this upfront, this isn't a criticism, but the issue is that applying 'Indie' to companies like these makes little sense. What are they 'independent' of, exactly, considering the size of their businesses?
To take Thunderful, Team17 and Devolver Digital as examples, it's important to say that they've achieved huge success as publishers and developers through savvy business, investments and, more importantly, outstanding games. Thunderful emerged from the triumphant story of Image & Form, which achieved initial success with the SteamWorld series. Devolver has become a byword for quirky, bold, imaginative 'boutique' games, a company with an outstanding eye for top-notch titles and impressive viral marketing techniques. Team17 has shaped itself into a champion of games from smaller developers, while modernising its own iconic brands like Worms. Yet they are all, as entities, well beyond being 'Indie' in the original sense of he word; they are powerhouses in their own right, with varied departments to suit the trappings of bigger business, plenty of employees and a lot of clout.
In the pre-internet era developers would need the backing of Capcom, Electronic Arts et al, but now there are dozens (maybe hundreds) of publishers that offer a route into the new indie scene.
In a previous job I attended multiple game industry events in a business capacity, which takes you into separate areas from the main show with lots of meeting areas and even some suits to be found. Devolver Digital often had a similarly-sized meeting space to the likes of Nintendo and Microsoft — the scale of that operation is impressive. There have been reports this year that the company may go public with a stock offering that could potentially reach £1 billion.
But, the key point is that I don't say this as a negative, but rather as a sign that the game industry continues to evolve. Companies like these aren't Indies in the accurate sense of the word, but they often help to elevate games by small teams to mainstream attention. Just like the once upcoming social media platforms, the 'Indie' scene has — over time — grown and monetised through more traditional patterns. In the pre-internet era developers would need the backing of Capcom, Electronic Arts et al, but now there are dozens (maybe hundreds) of publishers that offer a route into the new indie scene, where influence and clout doesn't get shelf space in stores, but rather prime billing in media and platform holder showcases.
When you combine the influence of these wealthy publishers with small development teams still making innovative, fascinating games, you have what is an exciting era for fans of the download/non Triple-A space. Technology and tools also give indie developers the means to make games that are not only impactful, but beautiful, and some projects with careful budgeting and the right contacts are able to achieve the sort of production values that, a decade ago, wouldn't have been dreamed of outside of big-budget titles.
If there's a negative at the moment, it is that 'Indie' can be hijacked as a term for a degree of 'cool'. Konami apparently qualifies for an Indie World broadcast, which seems extraordinary, and there are relatively large, heavily resourced development studios that form and brand themselves as 'independent'. We recently received a press release promoting a new independent studio filled with big-name industry veterans that ended by thanking their partners: Google, Tencent, and 505 Games.
The problem with this, and with also applying the Indie tag to big-time publishers like those mentioned above, is that it creates new gatekeepers that could make it harder for those that actually stick to the independent route. It's not impossible, as games like Among Us and Valheim have shown, but we shouldn't treat a relatively small amount of break-out successes as an indication that the issue doesn't exist. If the likes of Devolver, Team17, Annapurna Interactive and more are a new generation of gatekeepers, it's important that as the years go by the growth of their wealth and influence doesn't undo the Indie spirit. Right now we're in a wonderful sweet-spot where small teams are found and given significant backing and eventual success, but we've also seen developers fall out with publishing partners. It'll remain a balance.
Unfortunately, we've seen in the 'triple-A' industry how profits and big finance can contribute to the erosion of ethics, worker rights and the actual quality of game experiences. Let's hope that, as this era of Mega Indies continues to unfold, those pitfalls can be avoided and the diverse range of games and experiences we've enjoyed over the last decade only gets better, as the 'Indies' get bigger.
Comments (81)
Indie devs have never been immune from the problems that plague AAA devs. Any notion of indies being the solution in that sense is a fallacy. Plenty indie devs have swindled players, had toxic work environments, abused people etc. So the entire indie > AAA in terms of worker ethics etc is pretty invalid. This erosion of the difference between indies and what’s often known as AA studios honestly won’t change much at all. You’ll still get your small start-ups as always but places like Devolver and Annapurna will publish games in the same way that Koch Media and Focus Interactive have done for years. As long as people are willing to play new experiences by untested devs then the indie spirit will live on.
Indie at least still means "games made by people"
The sheer horrors every time I try to look up legitimate "3DS Homebrew" is ... well, it was enough to put ME off doing it. Goodness knows it takes a lot to stop me throwing out free games, but that sure did it..
I love the amount of indies lately it's absolutely making everything better. I feel like company's have started playing a lot of games safe (including Nintendo) I mean most of the new ips are not as weird and odd I mean there are a few but it feels like they were everywhere on the GameCube PS2 era and before that. I feel like the indies are picking up the slack and filling in that need for games that aren't guaranteed best sellers but are something completely out there.
I just call them games, it makes no difference to me how many people made them or how big the studio is. A good game is a good game regardless of budget or ownership of the developer, end of story
Authenticity is money.
fans, journalists, AND publishers have all turned the term "indie" into something it doesn't mean.
indie = independent. meaning devoid of big corporate namesakes.
indie doesn't mean "not AAA."
it's hella weird and I hate it.
It's like the 90's music scene all over again. With bands like Oasis and Blur emerging, calling themselves Indie.
I had an Atari 5800, nes, genisis,. I remember being mind fd when I played Mario 64. How could graphics get any better then this I thought. Then they did. My problem with Indy is I really don’t wanna go back to the 90s. I like new 1st party Nintendo. And I wish their were more games.
With how many great games come from small studios, I don't think of them as 'Indie' most of the time. Not that I ever had a problem with that term, but there are some incredible games from teams that aren't as well known as those from big publishers. I think that's great.
I call them indies bc you don't have some big corp controlling them, Cuphead, There DLC has been put of three times, Bc they don't have a deadline as say if they worked for sega or nintendo. So Idk I think indies still keep its meaning in a way.
@nessisonett I agree.
I won't put indie games on the same turf as bigger productions, there's a reason why they're "indie".
I feel like the same thing happened in FILM a long time ago. "Indie" films now have super stars, and financial backing from big studios.
When an independent dev gets picked up by a publisher, they are no longer independent. If an independent developer never gets picked up by a publisher, they stay independent. Glad I could clear it up for you.
What this article misses is the shareware scene in the 90s on amigas. Team 17 started as a distributor for some of their games… in a way they already worked on consolidation of indie developers then…
Most indies are better than most 3rd party games. Love indie games!
Well if we don't want to allow "indie" to officially become just a genre of games (like with the indie music example) we're going to need a suitable alternative. Myself, as a consumer, I can definitely say that I get the most enjoyment out of "indie" games, whatever that means today. Be it Devolver Digital, Cadence of Hyrule, randos on itch.io or free student projects on Steam.
I guess "alternative" worked OK in the 90s, although it would be a bit cringey to use the term these days.
@nessisonett GamerGate really exposed a lot of the indie rot.
I mean what does triple A mean?
Did you say "It has a ridged and defined meaning in that the property has and A list producer, and A list director, and an A list lead role, therefor triple A"? Probably not, even though that's the truth.
Indie, at it's core, means published and developed by the same studio going all the way back to indie records. It was meant to highlight the "independent" nature of the creative force behind the work, as it would not be called on to change or compromise anything to appease a 3rd party. That makes a lot of games we call "AAA" from Microsoft and Square "indie" titles, while Stardew Valley, coded by one guy, is not indie (seeing chucklefish published it).
But language literally doesn't work like that (see what I did there?). These words mean whatever we agree they mean as a community, and that will change over time.
Gamepass is doing an Amazing job for Indy games and giving them a platform where people can try them risk free.
I've played (and subsequently bought DLC/MTX) games on there that I have passed over hundreds of times on Switch because I didn't want to waste money on something I may not like.
The Switch does an ok job of hosting smaller profile games, but the E-Shop is a mess and it's difficult to sort out the gems from the stupid amount of shovelware and tat - I've been burned way too many times now to waste money on anything that isn't a Nintendo exclusive and I play all of the smaller "Indy" games on Xbox or PlayStation where they are cheaper/free.
Wouldn't they just be called Single A games?
Half Life is an Indie Game, since valve is independent.
It's similar to ebooks. You can write and publish your own book at very little cost. The hard part for the buyer is to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
And with indi games, on the Switch there is a lot of chaff.
I thought that was a picture of Crazy Frog at the top at first!
@Clyde_Radcliffe
LOL Crazy Frog. 🤣
The big players co-opted the scene as way to add a budget game range. A new era of mid-level publishing after the ashes of the original mid-tier publishers that were killed off by huge Western investors in the late 2000’s. Some of the evolution of indies is owed to a rejection of the big-moneyed offerings from large pubs. But now there’s so much investment available that certain narratives aren’t as authentically grass-roots as they were for a time
Anyway, for me indie >>> AAA.
I don't even like AAA games.
Many indie developers need these indie showcase broadcasts to get their games noticed and maybe even for their entire companies to survive. They probably don't have a lot of money for a massive marketing push so these videos can really make a difference in getting their games seen and sold.
From that point of view, it's very bad for companies like Konami (and I think in the past, Microsoft) to be featured. These are massive companies using platform that is designed to give exposure to smaller (and less financially able) developers. Potentially they are taking away time-slots from true indie developers that could not otherwise market to so many people. It is not a positive thing.
Pretty sure general concensus by the mainstream gaming crowd is that indie games are games that look 8 bit or 16 bit or something like that.
Then again these are the people that go to an indie showcase expecting a smash character reveal so their intelligence needs be called into question.
Honestly it barely ever made sense, what's the difference between an indie who gets a publisher and any given dev studio? employee numbers? where is the exact cut-off point then? not that that has any bearing on how "independent" they are, whether or not a publisher has ownership or a contract with them doesn't seem like a significant factor to mark a whole category of games.
If what the term is trying to convey is a certain scale and scope of games, we do definitely need better vocabulary than that which focuses on the status of its developer, or "A"s which imply some correlation to quality. The fact that people associate anything 2D with "indie" now even when it's a first-party Nintendo game means we definitely F'd up
If I am tbh, I hate the oversaturation of the game market with Indie games.
It is like a "Netflix effect", in that we are oversaturated with TV shows its hard to find one to like or get excited snout over anymore.
@Anti-Matter so you don’t like dance dance revaluation? The sims? Yokai watch? Paper Mario? Animal crossing? Etc…
I agree with the assessment that to me, there's no distinction. Indie, AAA, whatever's in between, I look at games on their own merit based on whether the title's gameplay interests me in some way. Maybe it's a holdover from being there since the 'game industry' was in its infancy and thus can enjoy a game made with pixels, high-def models or whatever, but I believe every game must compete with others in the field regardless of the resources of its developer, and every title should be looked at as its own animal.
The term 'indie' means nothing to me as a buyer, although I do enjoy the idea of smaller teams and lone devs making their own games and standing shoulder to shoulder with larger companies and developers. There should be room for all who want to be there and can provide worthwhile entertainment, labels be damned.
@My_ultimate_is_ready And the sims is by EA.
@Guitario
It's film language, and there was no "singe A"
You had an A list star, director, producer as "Triple A"
An A list director or producer was a "feature"
An A list actor with B list production / director was a "Block buster" (This is irony; a block buster is a literal type of bomb, so a block buster movie was using a A list actor to draw people into a movie that would otherwise "bomb". It's meaning has obviously changed)
Without any A listers you were a "B movie"
Indie film popped up around the same time indie record did, and it meant a movie that was produced and distributed by the director, meaning he would have complete creative control (the same way indie record meant published by the band or a "hands off" label). It never had anything to do with low budget (low budget films were already a thing), but instead was used to bring light to that creative freedom.
In video games this became "AAA" as a game with a A list creative team and budget, "indie" replaced "B movie", and nothing in between got a name.
I think indie has been used as "not AAA, not from a established studio" for basically the whole time we've used it in video games. That's becoming problematic because Xbox, Switch and Steam let almost anyone self publish now and we don't have a word for that type of game. But to say "indie doesn't mean not AAA" isn't accurate. It probably SHOULDN'T mean that, but it does.
The way language works, we're better off coming up with a new word rather then trying to change the meaning of an established one.
I have long since given up on the over-hyped, over-priced and under-performing AAA titles. The majority of which always seem centered upon violence and killing. I have found so many more wholesome, creative and yes... 'fun' games from the Indie sector and for which the Switch is the perfect platform. Great value, excellent concepts and many really good indie games are far more deserving of my time and recognition than the mainstream passing fads and fashions that I think I'd be happy to never buy an AAA title again (but maybe that's just me)
I've always had this notion that indie = 2D sprite games. While that isn't true 100% of the time, I admit it leads me to not really even look much into games under that label. Like, I didn't even know there was an Indie World a few days ago, and even if I had, I wouldn't have watched it.
I know there are Indie games out there that would be interesting, but the notion that they're largely 2D sprite games really turns me off from really looking into them myself unless a really neat aspect of them is brought to my attention (like the LGBT representation list made by Kate a month or so back, or that one Bug Story game that always gets brought up because it's a spiritual successor to classic Paper Mario).
Not really bothered by the blurring of the lines with what makes a game “indie” or not. If the distinction between bigger AAA games (that can be made by independent studios all the same) and smaller titles by indie studios (that may still be published by large companies) is their overall scope/budget then so be it. At the end of the day whatever label a game has in regards to its production doesn’t matter (or shouldn’t matter to anyone at least). At the very least it gives an opportunity for smaller titles to get a spotlight (Indie Worlds etc.) in an industry where advertising and hype is squared mainly at big budget games.
It’s lost its meaning for sure- going by its technical meaning, Luigi’s Mansion 3 would be an indie game considering Next Level were independent at the time it was made. At this point it’s as nebulous a term as it is when it’s related to music. It doesn’t make sense by it’s definition but there’s a lot of reasonable assumptions about a game you can make if it’s labelled as “indie” - namely with regards to budget. In that sense it might as well stick around, even if it doesn’t make a ton of sense.
@Anti-Matter correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't dance dance revolution a triple a game?
Really had to roll my eyes at Metal Slug being labelled an indie game. It really is all a branding thing now. Not really about the little guy coding out of his apartment with zero legitimate industry contacts. I think I'll be sad if Devolver does go public. I guess I would wonder what the brand stands for in ten years' time.
I'm finding myself more interested in games coming from "indie" developers than most of the cookie cutter, generic AAA titles coming from one of the major studios. It seems to me the last generation where AAA titles were still fresh and exciting was around the PS3/Xbox 360 time frame, which is great as a lot of those titles are coming to the Switch, like BioShock, which I'm playing right now and love. While there are still some great AAA titles coming out, like Doom Eternal and many of the PS/Nintendo exclusives, most of the multiplat titles in this genre seem tired and stale.
@HeadPirate hey thanks for clearing that up.
Nintendo hate Indies and want to destroy them. This is why they are calling big developers Indies, slowly eroding the boundaries and silencing them for good.
This is full of bad takes. It's not a question of gatekeeping, at all.
First) Indie games have existed since the very beginning of the industry, even if it was mostly on micro-computers and pcs.
Second) Plenty of indie games being developed deserve the term. Why focus on a few of them that are only indie to some degree and not fully. They don't define the term, its silly. Next time a sole developer, after 5 years of development, releases a game on steam... are we going to tell him that "indie" means nothig?
Third) Big companies are the ones that are using the term to gain attention, losing its meaning in the process. Tetris and metal slug indies? come on! I'm not going to fall for it. Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft... they should NOT define what an indie game is, even if they are trying to.
@ATaco don't Indie developers choose 8- bits or 16- bit due to gameplay or artist option?
@My_ultimate_is_ready
The AAA games i really hate was the AAA games for adult audiences with ultra realistic graphics, hyper violences and gore, foul languages, dark theme, crime, etc.
Of course i like DDR, The Sims games, Yokai Watch, ACNL, ACNH, Portal Knights, Dragon Quest Builders 2, etc. They are the only "AAA" games from my definition.
@Edu23XWiiU Too bad that doesn't stop game awards form lumping indies with the big boys. Of course, that also resulted in Among Us winning an award in 2020 despite coming 2 years before
The only difference it makes to me are price (but I usually wait for sales regardless unless it's a game I can't live without) and which games I can see info on in a Nintendo direct versus an indie showcase... and some games (Hades I think?) have been in both.
The only distinction I am sure of is that actual Nintendo games aren't in Indie showcases
I think the thing indies have done is really bring alot of content to middle or low pricing. Companies like EA, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Ubisoft are always going to ask $60 for a game day 1. It doesn't matter if it's not a big budget game for them or if it has many features. Their model is to ask $60 and then drop over-time. Indies can bring out low budget (not bad) games that hit the $10-30 range. To me I think it's great because there are more options and it's cheaper and I do think it causes the big boys to drop their prices quicker than if the indie games didn't exist.
@GrailUK Yep, and "alternative rock" going mainstream with Nirvana and the like. The term meant what it says in the '80s when underground bands provided an "alternative" to the hair metal bands of the day.
What I find fascinating, moving forward, is how much big 3rd parties have let indies shine on Nintendo's console, and not necessarily for their benefit. I cannot fathom how Activision and EA have not put at least ONE Call of Duty or Madden on this system. This will not tarnish their brand so much as it will diminish it; the Switch could end up at the top of the heap, looking down on the PS2 and DS when it's all over. What would those (potential) 155+ million Switch owners think of those big 3rd party names that did not grace the system?
Language evolves. For me, you know you’re an Indie when you don’t have a marketing budget…
The term has been diluted from independent published games to not AAA as it is the trendy thing to associate.
It has gone beyond the point of no return now so I just ignore it as no more than a marketing tactic.
Why is it when people talk about developing games in the 80s/90s they only act like consoles were the only thing? The only thing preventing a small dev from publishing on a console was licensing rights. As for the meaning of 'indie' vs 'AAA' it's been mangled by everyone. Even in the comments here seem to have odd ideas between the two. The only thing that really seems to be consistant is the budget, and the relationship of who is giving the money.
More like the term “indie” is being misinterpreted.
One look at the eShop, however, definitely confirms that whatever meaning the "Nintendo Seal of Quality" ever had is LONG gone. The glut of absolute trash there makes the Wii look good, and that's saying something.
"Indies" may not necessarily mean lower quality, but let's be honest: that's exactly the case in probably 98% of the games hitting consoles' and Steam's digital stores anymore. There simply is no filter and no accountability to provide software support that's genuinely worth playing and isn't laden with bugs and glitches (though the latter can sadly also be said for titles from major studios as well). And that actually ends up hurting everyone, including the Indies who put the effort in to make a great product, if only by association.
I used to always label indies as "games not worthy to spend money " boy how wrong i was. I loved void ***** and the persistence find them not only fun but original compared to standard triple AAA fps , i loved stardew valley,hades, hollow knight and my time at portia ,dead cell,yookaele,redhot e aragami(best 3d person stealth I really wants a new tenchu game).
@Deliesh Hmm...does gaming have an alterntive scene?
I mean, really, how many good Indie games have there been:
Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, LEGO Indiana Jones: The Original Adventure, maybe Indiana Jones and the Emperor's Tomb and at most a couple more.
Honestly I don't understand the fuss, I mean it's a cool franchise and all, but why is everyone going on about Indie games all the time these days!?
Move along people! There are other cool protagonists out there too!
I've been asking for this for a while now. The indie label was necessary 15 years ago when XBLA was suddenly there and games like Braid and FEZ paved the way for a few generations of indie games to come. But when I played Subnautica, I wasn't sure what this is. I assumed it was an Indie game, lowering my expectations in terms of production value and size and then got blown away by how great this game was. I mean, in this case, the indie-label did a good thing as it just bursted through all my expectations.
Still in general the industry has moved forward and Indie games are often not just indie games by one guy like Axoim Verge but can also be a pretty big procject like Ori including several teams across the globe. Plus huge companies like EA missuse the term indie game for "games with heart and soul". I mean its nice that EAs "indie" studios might have more freedom than for instance Bioware while keeping there scale low. But in the end, its something different to a studio like Moebius Digital, which worked like a decade as a students project on a game that would eventually transform into Outer Wilds.
This ain't binary. Its not lie a yes and no. And thus it would be better to kinda change the value of the term "indie". Maybe it doesn't need to completely go away, but just shouldn't be used like a seal.
@brunojenso "Ha, ha very funny."
@Minako sorry, it’s an old and slightly sad joke but I couldn’t resist.
@Entrr_username Yeah, it's hard to take awards seriously for things like that.
@Anti-Matter What is wrong with AAA games in general? I know there are a lot of stinkers bereft of any soul or passion but it's not always that way.
And plenty of Indie devs that are boring and uninspired, how many 8/16 bit rogue (like/lite) games do we need ya know.
Or fps survival games with crafting and stuff.
@khululy
Not every indie games are lazy 8 / 16 bit style games as you think.
I have played some good indie games on PS4 / Switch with great 3D model such as Yonder the Cloud Cather Chronicles, Portal Knights, Valthirian Arc: Hero School Academy (indie game from my country Indonesia 🇲🇨), Moving Out, Overcooked games, Lost Sphear, Poi: Explorer edition Earthlock, etc.
I really hate AAA games by majority due to oftenly they are the games for adult audiences with NSFW contents on it.
@Anti-Matter Nah the 8/16 bit thing was more of an example how oversaturated and uninspired indie games can be.
Also a lot of Adult indie games, some even with subject matter modern AAA cannot get away with.
@khululy
If you watched Wholesome Indie Direct June 2021, that was the best indie direct that I have ever watched with almost every single indie games shown I have interest about (approximately 95%).
I saw a lot of unique ideas from Wholesome Indie Direct and the games were mostly matching with my gaming genre. Yes, mostly they were cute indie games that matched with my preferences.
Also, even the AAA games are not adult games such as Zelda games or Xenoblade or Smash Bros, I have zero interest with them as I don't like too popular games + I have no chemistry at all with those games.
@Anti-Matter I get that, I have no chemistry with most modern shooters hell even a lot of 3rd person action games are not for me these days.
Its spreading to the real world. Theirs an indie shop opening near me, it only sells crystal skulls and whips.
I don't get hung up on the selective criterium or terminology... I just care about whether the end product is enjoyable tbh.
@Codessa Are they also selling those fine leather jackets? (kudos if you get that one)
I wish the term weren't so eroded, but scolding people into not speaking a certain way basically has never worked and never will. I propose we start slapping "AAA" on whatever game of any scale or and budget as a seal of quality and polish, so that eventually that label (which was an empty marketing ploy to begin with) will become increasingly meaningless and hopefully both terms fall out of use.
The distinction's always been pointless. Made by a thousand or by one, enormous budget or shoestring, in the end all it matters product-wise is whether the game is good. The less all these games get artificially split up, the better.
@Eighties Nailed it! Take my like
We gotta raise the bar now.
Unless your game was developed on either a TI-83 calculator or a Samsung Refrigerator with a screen, you can no longer call yourself an indie game.
Hear hear! Well put, Tom. We are enjoying a glut of fun indie games right now, (was well as a mess of crap shovelware) but as you pointed out, it may turn out to be at the expense of some smaller, truly independent teams. Certain teams aren't able to keep their seat now that big money is putting their bets on the table. The team that created the wonderful game Aer closed their doors, and though I don't know the full story, it does make me wonder if they are a casualty of the issue this article is about. I hope not.
@NImH Yeah also kinda undermines the "best indie awards" when you have them being published by a big publisher.
When even being noticed is a challenge due to all the competition. If the publishers dominating AAA games are also dominating the indie scene it'd be a fair question to wonder if self-published indies are getting squeezed out of the indie scene.
I don't see what the issue is. As a consumer the size of the team who made the game and how resourced they are makes absolutely no difference to my enjoyment of the game. In the early days sure, you could tell the difference between them. Independently developed titles tended to be lower budget original titles in an era where everything had become a multi-million dollar blockbuster. But now? Independent developers are making huge titles and major studios are making small titles. As a consumer there is no gap between them anymore but the "smaller and low risk" titles still need a word. And that word is indie
Same thing happened with music. Indie there also used to mean music that wasn't on a major label which in the early 2000s was a particular sound. An alternative to alternative which at that point was the mainstream and not alternative. But then independents became popular, got labels and signed artists started to use the indie sound. These days indie is totally divorced from that original meaning
The meaning of words change, especially when the original meaning of the word doesn't have any value to the people using it. For a consumer the financing situation of the development studio is about as relevant to them as the brand of CPUs they used in their workstations when developing. So of course indie has come to mean something other than "independent"
@Gwynbleidd @Anti-Matter
That was on the PC side. Self publishing was a lot easier on PC because the method of delivery, Floppy and later BBS and the internet, were orders of magnitudes cheaper than console.
Nintendo required that you order a minimum number of cartridges for your games (usually 15 through 30,000 copies) and you assumed all the risk if the game flopped. Sega was only slightly less oppressive, and even though Sony was seen as a benevolent savior for console developers, the truth is they were only viewed that way because Nintendo and Sega were so awful to work with when it came to manufacturing. They all had high licensing rates. 3DO was the only company that attempted to emulate the PC scene, with extremely low royalty rates and you could source your media (CD-ROM) from any manufacturer. And we see what happened there.
Ultimately, consoles and PCs took drastically different paths to where they are today. Consoles, especially the cartridge systems, were extremely expensive to publish on. So only big dogs could apply. And it stayed that way until the creation of digital store fronts. But those store fronts are dominated by their platform holders who, while not being as bad as Sega/Nintendo/Sony in the pre internet days, still demand high royalties as a percentage of sales.
@My_ultimate_is_ready Of course not. He’s just using this as another opportunity to flex about how he hates all the sinful AAA violent games, and only likes to play kiddie games on his massive collection of physical-only hardware lol.
I only really get excited about indie titles since almost everything else is sequel, reboot, remake, regurgitated.
Also "nitty gritty of submitting and releasing a game on a platform like the eShop" was rather amusing to me seeing as how 90% of the eShop is just utter garbage shovelware..it really can't be THAT hard.
Tap here to load 81 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...