Tim Schafer: Indies Moving Away From XBLA, Patches Cost $40,000. Moving to Steam.

[GusTheCrocodile]

Originally Posted by Anarchisteve

@GustheCrocodile. Just because Valve have some theoretical control over other developer's games does not mean they are a publisher. If that were the case then a lot of games would be published by Valve, Microsoft, Sony, GAME, Wal-Mart, Play.com, Sainsbury's, Tescos, Asda, etc. etc.

Uh, of course. It wasn't me that brought up "control" at all. Like I said, if you think a publisher is someone who has (non-"theoretical") control over a work, I've nothing to discuss with you, because I think it's someone who publishes things.

[crunchyfrog555]

Originally Posted by GusTheCrocodile

No, I'm pretty sure they understand, they just don't agree with your definition. Valve own and operate the most popular digital distribution network for PC games. They charge developers (by some mechanism, I'm not sure what - I've heard they take a cut of sales but I don't really know) for access to that network and the services they provide through it. Their income is thus tied to that of hundreds, perhaps thousands of other developers, and they are doing very very well out of it. To say Valve are "independent", but, say, the internal studios at EA or Ubisoft aren't because their parent company is a publisher, is just absurd. In the digital world, there is no meaningful difference between what Valve do with Steam and what EA and other "traditional" publishers do - they make games available to the public on a large scale.

I'm sure you'd prefer the word "indie" to have a nice neat singular definition like "independent", but it just isn't the case; the concept is necessarily fuzzy. Independent is part of the etymology of the term "indie", but etymology is not meaning.

Here's the thing. It's not MY definition. It is the absolute definition.

An indie game (as with indie film and music) is merely something which is created without extraneous assistance (assets or otherwise) of an external publisher during the creation process.

It really is as straightforward as that.

If some people don't agree with it, it is merely because their perception and understanding is wrong.

Clear definitions, such as this, are pretty absolute.

[GusTheCrocodile]

Hah, "the absolute definition", oh dear. According to who? What authority sets down absolute definitions? Language simply doesn't work like that, I'm afraid.

But okay, let's take your definition. Something created without extraneous assistance (assets or otherwise) of an external publisher during the creation process. So EA's games are indie, yes? And Ubisoft's? And Nintendo's? What you're saying is that essentially, the term indie means something other than what the vast majority of people are using it to mean, which is an absurd situation. And all because you insist that it's possible for the majority to be wrong about a word and instead some "absolute" authority to be right.

This is not jargon we're talking about, not the realm of science and measurement where, you know, it's important for a megabyte to be exactly 1024 bytes, not just "a lot of bytes". In general, words can change in meaning; definitions can be multiple and fuzzy. To insist so much on this ideal of a definition, one that goes against the way the language is actually used, no less, is utter prescriptivist nonsense.

[WardDragon]

Originally Posted by GusTheCrocodile

But okay, let's take your definition. Something created without extraneous assistance (assets or otherwise) of an external publisher during the creation process. So EA's games are indie, yes? And Ubisoft's? And Nintendo's?

Those publishers aren't actually making the games though. They own development studios, provide the studios with money to make games, and then weigh in on what's allowed to be in the game. Indie is more along the lines that the developer can do whatever they want without anyone above them to veto it.

I think that's why Bastion is usually considered an Indie game even though it was published by Warner Brothers. The developer (Supergiant Games) made the game first on their own and then simply found a publisher willing to distribute it, but the publisher had no say in the game's content or direction.

[GusTheCrocodile]

Originally Posted by WardDragon

Those publishers aren't actually making the games though. They own development studios, provide the studios with money to make games, and then weigh in on what's allowed to be in the game. Indie is more along the lines that the developer can do whatever they want without anyone above them to veto it.

Definitely, I agree. Crunchyfrog will note that that's not the same definition as his "clear, absolute" offering, which specifically mentioned things external and extraneous. Surely it's "clear" to him that that doesn't mean "some other people in the same company organise getting the product into boxes". Because I think most people would call that internal.

[Smasher2468]

Originally Posted by derrman0426

Steam isn't restrictive at all, and is very open.

The fact that its very restrictive of what retail games you can register on it, makes it quite the opposite.

[zrmnt]

Originally Posted by Smasher2468

The fact that its very restrictive of what retail games you can register on it, makes it quite the opposite.

It actually depends on the distributor/developer to allow their retail copies registered through steam. and it also depends if the developer has a contract on steam to distribute their games on the storefront (store.steam)

[crunchyfrog555]

Originally Posted by GusTheCrocodile

Hah, "the absolute definition", oh dear. According to who? What authority sets down absolute definitions? Language simply doesn't work like that, I'm afraid.

But okay, let's take your definition. Something created without extraneous assistance (assets or otherwise) of an external publisher during the creation process. So EA's games are indie, yes? And Ubisoft's? And Nintendo's? What you're saying is that essentially, the term indie means something other than what the vast majority of people are using it to mean, which is an absurd situation. And all because you insist that it's possible for the majority to be wrong about a word and instead some "absolute" authority to be right.

This is not jargon we're talking about, not the realm of science and measurement where, you know, it's important for a megabyte to be exactly 1024 bytes, not just "a lot of bytes". In general, words can change in meaning; definitions can be multiple and fuzzy. To insist so much on this ideal of a definition, one that goes against the way the language is actually used, no less, is utter prescriptivist nonsense.

Absolute definition is what it says. If you prefer, how about dictionary definition, if it suits your sensibilities better.

You could have a peek at Wikipedia, if you so please. That states quite clearly what I've already put, and I repeat it is no different to the film and music equivalents.

In your examples, you're missing the point that EA and the likes ARE major publishers, so they'd be hard pressed to be without such influence wouldn't they?

You really seem to misinterpret this entirely. But much of what you say is complete nonsense - particularly the part about "most people". On what authority do you say that?

It's all very well you scoffing, but did you actually bother to check any definitions?

[GusTheCrocodile]

Huh? What is it exactly you want me to refer to Wikipedia about? The part where it says "Independent video games (commonly referred to as indie games) are video games created by individuals or small teams without video game publisher financial support", which doesn't contradict me, and "There is no exact widely-accepted definition of what constitutes an 'indie game'", which is my entire point? The part that doesn't list Valve as an indie game developer? The part that lists Valve as a publisher?

Now as you may have noticed, I'm not at all interested in appeals to authority, and I would note that dictionaries document language, rather than defining it. But hey, if you want to point to references, it seems weird to point to ones that agree with me.

[crunchyfrog555]

Originally Posted by GusTheCrocodile

Huh? What is it exactly you want me to refer to Wikipedia about? The part where it says "Independent video games (commonly referred to as indie games) are video games created by individuals or small teams without video game publisher financial support", which doesn't contradict me, and "There is no exact widely-accepted definition of what constitutes an 'indie game'", which is my entire point? The part that doesn't list Valve as an indie game developer? The part that lists Valve as a publisher?

Now as you may have noticed, I'm not at all interested in appeals to authority, and I would note that dictionaries document language, rather than defining it. But hey, if you want to point to references, it seems weird to point to ones that agree with me.

You need to look up what the word defining means - dictionaries DEFINE words, quite precisely, in order to avoid ambiguity. Do note that the term you quoted from Wikipedia agrees with my statement (which is why I always check facts, where necessary before posting). Do note that the list of indie developers is not exhaustive, so there's a number of developers who don't feature there.

Nice go at trying to wriggle out of things, when you realised you were quite wrong though. Now, with that said, there's little more to say, so I'll bid you good day.

[Gummydrop]

I'm just going to leave this here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

[crunchyfrog555]

Originally Posted by Gummydrop

I'm just going to leave this here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

Nice point. Although that is more in regard to words (which the writer in me obviously enjoys), and not strict definitions.