The "industry standard" definition of the term "indie" is: a developer not owned by a publisher.

That's it. No word about funding. No indicator of who has creative control. Just a quick check of who owns you.

With all the focus on aggregator Web pages recently, and all this talk of how it has become impossible to be found on the Internet, it seems that even this community is adopting that definition, looking for someone they can sell themselves to for the privilege of making games.

But...

The market isn't closed. Publishers aren't the only option. Not everyone goes to Real or any other place on the Internet to find the games they want.

You can be an indie that is much more than just "not owned by a publisher."

You *can* self-publish and be successful. Stop looking for the easy way out.

Be a flippin' INDIE already.

-David

David, thanks for the encouragement.

I think independency is a long subject to discuss phylosophically and practically.

For me, practical meaning is: not being owned by a publisher, though there are levels for that. For instance, are you making a game to express yourself, or to attract customers...

There comes the phylosophical meaning. First of all, being independent is an ideal case, it can not be 100% reached. I think being independent is developing games as pure as art, which doesn't seem possible to do for me at the moment.

In some ways I think the term "Interdependent" is more appropriate for the vague utopian ideal that often comes up in these discussions: The small developer that has "good" interests at heart(vision, innovation, fair profit), has talent to accomplish its visions, and always prefers building bridges over burning them when dealing with its communities.

We are "independent" mostly in the freedom sense; we have control over certain things that are important to us, but we also ask and recieve advice on these boards, and (I hope) treat our customers with care, to encourage them to continue purchasing.

Certainly, none of us are independent enough not to rely on things like our governments' currencies or the manufacturing of our computers...though I would be impressed at the person who built their own microchip, input and output systems, method of power, and game software all from resources they made or mined themselves, all the while living by hunting and gathering, just to gain the title of "Most Independent Game Developer."

Right, that sounds like a challenge to me. I'm off to go weave some microchips out of grass, who's with me?

Originally posted by Anthony Flack
Right, that sounds like a challenge to me. I'm off to go weave some microchips out of grass, who's with me?

Anthony I'm here with you :D

When I was ~10 when I hadn't a computer, and I made game mechanisms that were like gamewatch (totally mechanic). Then I built an animation machine.

If I were put on an island without technology, probably I would start by inventing the wheel, agriculture, industry, ... computers ... :)

I don't think David was saying that you have to re-invent the wheel to be an indie game dev. What I think he was getting at is the idea that you don't have to form an association, or create some kind of meta company in order to compete with the "goliaths" of the industry. All you need to be is nimble and smart and you can do what you want without relying on the publisher paycheck or your association to save you from being squashed.

Stick to your guns, build your own customer list, build the products you want to build and don't give in to the hysteria/hype surrounding Real and Pogo.com and whoever else. Like David said at the IGC (I think it was him), use those guys as just another tool to further your own goals, but don't start thinking you have to use them to make it. You don't.

The small developer that has "good" interests at heart(vision, innovation, fair profit), has talent to accomplish its visions, and always prefers building bridges over burning them when dealing with its communities.

I really like this.


When I was ~10 when I hadn't a computer, and I made game mechanisms that were like gamewatch (totally mechanic).

What? No! You did? Because *I* tried that too...

Originally posted by Anthony Flack
Right, that sounds like a challenge to me. I'm off to go weave some microchips out of grass, who's with me?
Sounds great, but from what I heard, it's easier to make them with sand :)

Okay, thanks for the tip! Off I go!

Originally posted by Anthony Flack
What? No! You did? Because *I* tried that too...

That's real, after several attemps with ordinary tools, I bought Lego technics and used it. I did the same thing for the animation machine. I drew on regular paper, then coppied on transparent paper tapes to show on the machine.

In relation to David's concern, I want to be as independent as I was when I was about that ages. But I can't :..( (But I have plans ;) )

Originally posted by Mark Fassett
I don't think David was saying that you have to re-invent the wheel to be an indie game dev. What I think he was getting at is the idea that you don't have to [...]

I think David wanted to say that, unlike the mainstream in this industry for whom "independent developer" merely means "developer not owned by a mothercompany", for him the term "independent" refers to a greater idea of some sort.

Offcourse this all depends on from where you look at it. For the suits the description "not owned by any company" fits perfectly into theire (talking) needs. For me being independent starts at the morning: no stress in rush-hour traffic but running in the park.