Again I know that this topic is more my speed than anyone elses.

I've been going over the IGF list for more than a week I keep coming to Savage: The Battle for Newerth and wondering how in the world it qualifies as an Indie.

Just b/c their publisher isn't a member of the ESA or ELSPA should not then allow them to participate. Their publisher is a company who is not primarly involved in game development, but instead is involved primarly in commercial game publishing. Comparing a game that has more than $1,000,000 to devote to a staff to create does not put it at the indie level. Indies do not have that kind of budget. It puts them at an unfair advantage, whether or not the game wins is ENTIRELY besides the point.

Perhaps some different rules should be invoked? Savage is not independent in the way I think of independent. Perhaps my personal definition needs to change...dunno...but I think a money cut off might need to be considered...or something to keep things somewhat fair. Otherwise the IGF could just become a glorified showcase for not yet signed and published games that have HUGE financial backings instead of focusing on the innovation of the few and stalwart. My personal opinion is that it would be a bad thing.

Independent film struggles with the same question. In his book "Celluloid Mavericks" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560252324/davidrmsoftwa-20), Greg Merritt defines "an independent film as any motion picture financed and produced completely autonomous of all studios, regardless of size. (A studio is a company that both produces and distributes movies.)"

He also defines "a semi-indie film is not produced directly by a major studio (such as Paramount or Fox), but it does have a guarantee of distribution before it's produced, and it may be made by a smaller studio (such as Miramax or Gramercy)."

When I read that recently, I speculated how we might apply a similar set of definitions for "indie games".

So an "independent game" could be defined as "any game financed and developed completely automonous of any publisher, regardless of size". While leaving room for those "semi-indie" games from smaller developers that are developed outside a publisher.

-David

In my book and Indie is independant - not owned by another company or floated on the stock market. Why should be successful in business stop you being an indie? Getting someone else to pay for your development is a sign of success not a sign that you are no longer independent.

Originally posted by obscure
In my book and Indie is independant - not owned by another company or floated on the stock market. Why should be successful in business stop you being an indie? Getting someone else to pay for your development is a sign of success not a sign that you are no longer independent.

Getting your development funded by an outside company means you are working for someone. And you are dependent on money from them to continue development. They at that point are also going to have some say as to how the game is developed. The dictionary definition of independent says:
"Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant"

Alot of poeple have different definitions of what it is to be independent, but in my opinion once you are getting your development funded by an outside source, your are probably not developing independently.

There are some large and successful companies that I would still call independent, like Lionhead and id. But they are independent because they fund their own development and are not controlled or influenced by any other company. At least as far as I know they're not. If they were that would make them less independent.