The various people who actually developed the titles in the bundle are indie if you go by any reasonable definition.

deleted...read below....

"I think part of the problem here is that people still don’t know what “indie” means, and certain developers want the “indie” label to mean something so special, like an angel came from the sky and took human form.

But know this: “indie” is just a word and there’s nothing special about it."

You're starting to seem immature. "freedom" is just a word too. Hell every word you typed is "just a word", and every word this article is in response to is "just a word", so why did you bother typing this article?

"If something is “methodically and cynically ruining gaming” is the attitude from those developers who seemingly couldn’t handle success well enough and now the thinking part of their brain was replaced with a hot air balloon"

I hope you read my previous post to understand why publishers are methodically and cynically ruining gaming. To insult those who actually care about gaming as a service to society and not just a means of extracting wealth from society causes me to want to dislike you, but I am going to assume that you merely don't understand the processes of oppression that have been engineered into this industry. I truly hope you start understanding how having a third party promote your game is generally not good in the long run. For starters, sure, it's great for the six games in the EA Indue Bundle pack, but what about customers that have a certain amount of money to spend on games that see this first and buy it instead of some other indie devs' games? Should they be thankful EA is taking it upon themselves to decide which indie developers should be successful?

“small cool indie devs”

You absolutely, absolutely don't understand what you are talking about. I am sorry to be so blunt, I admit that I am torn between being sympathetic toward you as someone who simply speaks from ignorance vs being angry at you for chiding the very people who are trying to help break this industry free from its parasitical life drain. I think hatred toward publishers, EA included, is well deserved and is far from "childish". Unless you think it is childish to hate the inevitable lowering of wages, lowering of creative control, increase in layoffs as all the money that could keep studios afloat goes toward non-productive entities (the parasitical publishers), failed marriages from rampant crunching as each publisher tries to drive their slave force harder to compete with the other publishers, mental and physical health problems from said crunch, etc, that are inevitable in a rent-seeking scheme.

EDIT: It seems like editing comments removes all newlines, I've noticed this problem a lot lately, not sure if Gama is aware

I think your extended metaphor is seriously flawed. Taking your basic premise, a more accurate depiction of reality would be that Company A & B think that the market only has $100,000 but in actuality it's $500,000. Bringing on a partner with marketing savvy lets them reach a part of the market that neither company was reaching before.

"I think your extended metaphor is seriously flawed. Taking your basic premise, a more accurate depiction of reality would be that Company A & B think that the market only has $100,000 but in actuality it's $500,000. Bringing on a partner with marketing savvy lets them reach a part of the market that neither company was reaching before."

Right, and my answer to that is to zoom out in the metaphor. So Game Company A and Game Company B and Music Band C and Music Band D are competing for $500,000 of the entertainment market (and I can zoom out even more if this is not satisfactory). Then the publishing parasite model happens on the music side in the form of record labels. The key is to realize that value is being added by the talent (and to some extend I will agree that publishers and record labels add value, but not as much as they take out) while other people are spending their parallel time finding ways to earn off that value by moving wealth instead of creating it.

I admit that I don't know a good umbrella term to describe all publishers + record labels + big Hollywood studios, but the key is that they form an informal coalition to pit labor against labor while offering an arms-race market of advertising and brand clout which they use to gain wealth through little value-adding of their own.

I understand how some have "gone indie" based on their bad experiences with publishers, or lack of creative control (again, because of publishers). As I stated on my post (or at least I think I stated it), I'm not defending EA or publisher relationships in general.

On the other hand, I also know that some of the raging indie devs have never worked with a publisher because they've always developed games on their own and releasing them by themselves, so they never were the ones to escape the parasitical cycle you mention, so they seem to simply hate "the system" because others hate it. That doesn't make a lot of sense, at least to me.

I never said "indie" was meant to start feeding the ego of hipsters or something similar. I did say, however, that some indies act like these egocentric guys who are single-handedly saving gaming... like "Indies are saving gaming. EA is methodically destroying it," or any quote destined to put down "mainstream" games for not being good or deep enough. I mean, I don't like platformers myself but you don't see me bashing Super Meat Boy and going like "man, you'll never see ME making a platformer, I'm too cool to make such a mainstream game; I have to be the Salvador Dali of gaming."

Besides, it seems I'm not the only one who thinks indies have a problem with attitude:
Stressing that he doesn't intend to identify particular individuals � rather "the independent games community as a whole" � he urged everyone to "quit being so fucking egocentric. It's completely out of control," says Ben Ruiz.
"We end up not being able to metabolize the essence of others that contrast with us� how fast can we grow when we behave like this?" He pointed out the tendency to speak in absolutes, as well as the virulent distaste for the mainstream game industry.
The low-hanging fruit, like popular complaints about Zynga's soullessness or EA's laziness, is destructive and short-sighted, to say nothing of the personality conflicts among indies.

When I say "it's just a word" I'm saying it's meaningless because even some devs can't agree on what "indie" means. Some will say it's about not being attached to a publisher (so I assume Braid and the games in the EA bundle are not indie because they have a publisher), while others say it's about not having a publisher have any say on what kind of game you make, and yet others say it means "making games with love" (so I assume the guys at DICE must hate working on Battlefield because they are not indie), and some may even say indie means making low profits (which is why some say Mojang is not indie anymore and took arms when Mark Rein said "we're just a big indie, because we call our own shots").

The "better" definition I've found so far comes from RPS:
Indie is cool. Indie is hip. Indie is smart, chic, and sexy. Indie isn’t pretty, but it gets the job done. Indie is down-to-earth, the work of tireless blue collar DIY craftsmanship. Indie is pretentious, a haven for over-inflated egos and introspection with all the depth of a sun-dried puddle. Indie is big on head-in-the-clouds dreaming, but it crashes and burns in terms of execution. Indie is mechanically sublime – not a wasted input or animation. Indie is the future. Indie is stuck in the past.

On the other hand, "freedom" is also just a word, but pretty much anyone agrees on what that word means, and if we worry about THE MAN taking away our freedom, we talk about "the state" while THE MAN taking away "indie" speaks of "the label."

As for EA deciding which indie devs are successful or not, I don't think in the long run that is even possible, because players have tastes, and for that reason there are different genres of games. EA (or any other publisher for that matter) can decide which indies to back(if any), but they can't tell players what games to buy, so chances are the EA indie bundle will not greatly cannibalize the sales of *insert any indie game or bundle here*

All of this, while still assuming the ones that developed the games in those bundles actually get a fair share. If they do, then is it right to be mad at other devs making money? If, on the other hand a month from now I read here on Gamasutra that those same developers ended up receiving like 1% of the sales because EA decided they deserved the remaining 99% then there's a reason to spread the hate. But again, it would be about an unfair system, not about some guys using a word that means a lot to us but can't even agree on the meaning.

Fidel Castro says that Cuba is democratic, therefore, since we don't all agree on what "democracy" means, it's a meaningless word and we shouldn't criticise people for using it in a manner that we think is incorrect.

FWIW, that definition from RPS is about the worst definition for Indie I've ever heard, but I'm not sure how tongue-in-cheek it/you are trying to be.

"As for EA deciding which indie devs are successful or not, I don't think in the long run that is even possible"

If you want to know what the long term consequences are of publisher backing, just look at the mainstream industry, which is what the indie field is trying to escape.

"because players have tastes, and for that reason there are different genres of games. EA (or any other publisher for that matter) can decide which indies to back(if any), but they can't tell players what games to buy"

People choose things based on their taste, but we must choose also based on what we are aware of. When one product shouts louder than another, it will cause people to buy it who might have been happier with another product because they simply didn't get a chance to hear about that other product. This is the advertising arms race, and companies often put as much or more money into advertising as they do into the game itself. It doesn't cost obscene money to inform consumers, but it does cost obscene money to manipulate consumer avenues of information. To a large extent, publishers and marketers are clearly not value-adding; they do not create the game, the talent does. They do not pay for the game, the market does. They simply sit in the middle as self-appointed governments and rape the developers and the gamers for all they can get away with. The indie movement is an age old attempt to break this pattern, preceding video games (it has a history in hollywood and the music industry, and I would argue that the rent-seeking patterns that "indie" tries to break are as old as humanity).

"On the other hand, "freedom" is also just a word, but pretty much anyone agrees on what that word means"

I'm not sure about that, the nation that considers itself to be the most "free" also has the largest percentage of its citizens in prison and won't let adults smoke a certain type of weed even though it only (marginally) harms them and no one else. I would think that freedom is even more difficult to pin down than independent (and I am not going to give "indie" a separate definition, it is merely a shorthand). But no need to get into that, I don't think.

"If, on the other hand a month from now I read here on Gamasutra that those same developers ended up receiving like 1% of the sales because EA decided they deserved the remaining 99% then there's a reason to spread the hate."

I don't expect it to be that drastic, and I honestly don't know what the split is, but that is what it will become if publishers manage to overtake the non-publisher scene and spread the parasitical structure. But yeah, this is all beside the point if we want to focus on the title "EA Indie Bundle". The problem here is separate but real: it is analogous to trademark infringing. Sure "Indie" is not literally a trademark, but think about what trademark law is invented to protect: someone labeling their product using your company's name in hopes to trick consumers into purchasing their product based off the good will that your company created. If you've been following the indie bundle phenomenon, then I hope you can at least empathize with the perspective that this is a cynical cash grab by a large corporation using the good will created by others, made worse by the fact that EA has done overt harm to the development community (easpouse) and to gamers (origin fiasco, shutting down servers for games that aren't even that old) and the disrespect they have done to society in general (the dante's inferno marketing fiasco).

"On the other hand, I also know that some of the raging indie devs have never worked with a publisher because they've always developed games on their own and releasing them by themselves, so they never were the ones to escape the parasitical cycle you mention, so they seem to simply hate "the system" because others hate it."

For what it's worth, Notch was a wage slave game dev before he broke free. Since this blog is a response to an article about Notch complaining about the EA Indie Bundle, and since you mentioned him specifically in your blog, this particular paragraph feels like a bait-and-switch. Now we're talking about some nebulous indie devs that hate EA for bandwagon reasons? Sure, I'm sure they exist, it's a large world. I do want to say that you don't have to work for a publisher to hate them, just like I can hate serial killers without having lost a family member to one.

Thanks for clarifying though, I find a lot of what you say here easier to agree with than your first blog post. Bandwagon hate is bad, just like blind faith is. You need to have rational reasons for you opinions and actions to the best of your ability, it just so happens that EA gives pleeeenty of reasons to hate them. I don't think EA is really the worst company in America like the recent poll showed, but you do have to wonder why they beat out all other game companies and publishers :).

Actually I don't have anything against notch, and me mentioning him was mostly because he was prominently featured on the original post.

As you say (and I posted it on another response here), EA is pretty much taking advantage of the "indie" word (even if, under a certain light, the name makes sense). However I've also considered (and I've mentioned) how over-protective some may be of the term (again, the Epic is a big indie example I posted before). I forgot to mention, though, how sometimes I've also gotten the impression that you have to "earn" the "indie" title and how "one does not simply walk into Indie."

Makes me go back to the RPS article. The definition was indeed tongue-in-cheek but then there's this part:
"And yet, for every “indie” detractor, there’s an overzealous holier-than-thou indie ultra-purist. If it’s not indie, they suggest, it’s a “lower” form of entertainment. Did you enjoy yesterday’s Black Ops 2 trailer? Did you think it looked like big, loud, dumb fun? Do you dream of riding a robo-horse into the sunset and then blowing up the sun? Well then, you’re clearly a moron. You don’t “get” smart games, and works of real substance are lost on you"

This does make me wonder one thing, though. Are "those kind of games are a lower form of entertainment" and "those companies should be erased from the face of the earth" arguments going in both directions (Like, big, AAA, whatever publishers also attacking indies whenever there's the chance)? I certainly don't follow the news enough to know the answer.

"I've also gotten the impression that you have to "earn" the "indie" title and how "one does not simply walk into Indie.""

There's definitely a pretentiousness in the indie scene that I don't like :{. But I feel that is another issue; I still think that calling this the "EA Indie Bundle" is a slap in the face to indie devs and game development in general, however unsavory some of those devs may be.

I also think it is exaggerated, but we get into opinion there. I feel that Phil Fish is pretentious, plain and simple. I feel that Jonathan Blow is not, he's merely speaking at the level of his intelligence, achievement, and ability and not candy coating it. Many feel that he is the most pretentious indie there is. Maybe I don't feel that way about Jonathan because I generally agree with him, and maybe that makes me pretentious to others (though I'm not nearly as famous so I don't hear it; I also don't care too much :]).

My thoughts are that I really don't like the indie dichotomy, particularly the repurposing that seems to happen wrt the label, because it does go overboard. I loved Modern Warfare 1 & 2 even though I hate Activision and do feel that the series in general is pushed more than it needs to be. I'd rather we have games of that quality, as mindless as they may be, but remove the Koticks and suits from the equation so it is not released annually for the sake of it. Heck, they drove away a lot of their talent from that franchise (not just West and Zampella, but many developers quit to follow them), which makes me wonder how much better we would be if we didn't lose so much time and money to feeding the rent-seekers and managing talent drain.

"Are "those kind of games are a lower form of entertainment" and "those companies should be erased from the face of the earth" arguments going in both directions (Like, big, AAA, whatever publishers also attacking indies whenever there's the chance)?"

From what I've seen there are stronger "emotional" arguments against publishers, from devs and gamers. There are some emotional arguments against indies being pretentious (Phil fish did not help any claiming that the IGF was finally legit now that he won). I do hear flack about indies creating their own ruts - such as puzzle platformers following other puzzle platformers and what have you. I think the hatred between developers and publishers is a little more about protecting your livelihood from the game industry mafia protection racket than childish bickering or taste in games that are released. I think we would still have quality games and still have bandwagon games without rent-seeking, but I feel that the average quality of games would go up as people who care about the artform have more control over what goes into the game. And the quality of developers' lives would unquestionably go up. I don't know of any such argument being made from the AAA scene toward indies, though I bet it happens in board rooms - "How can we capitalize on the market that indies are opening up?" Sadly, this counter spirit is more about making the rich even richer at the expense of the poor, which is why I believe that Indie vs AAA is simply the game industry equivalent of the 99% vs the 1%. We really do have a ruling elite that seems unaware of or indifferent to just how much they are holding from the rest of society in many fields, and that's what needs to change :(.

The publisher here only appears as a leech because the publisher is not doing its job correctly. That is, the publisher should not just be looking to give their client a larger share of the market, but also increase the size of the market.

Now... are publishers successfully doing that? That's its own topic...

That definition by RPS is probably the vaguest definition I've read yet. This is what I prefer instead: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-16-what-is-indie

"...most gamers would agree that the indie scene is actually defined by its fierce creative spirit and contempt for corporate meddling."

I didn't mean to offend anyone. By definition, I also fall under the "indie" category.
Personally, it hurts a little when you hear "you're an indie? well I know this and that developers who are also indies... and they act like pricks..." Pretty similar to other kinds of comments I hear: "oh, you're a christian? I've seen christians are these hipocrites pedophiles and..." (whatever else you may want to add).

So again, sorry for the offense. What I was trying to say is that some have this fixation to the "indie" word, forgetting that being indie is not about following a dogma/ideology/whatever, or signing autographs everyone we go because "we're heroes," or making it to the news because we posted something on Twitter (no pun intended), but about the games that players can enjoy (while also making money. A bunch of likes on Facebook will not pay the bills :) )

"But I'm not sure how much of the earnings will go to devs"

I think this should be the important part and not how the bundle is named. After all they surely went like "ok how do we name it? people like the 'indie' word, and these devs are basically indies, so let's just call it the EA Indie Bundle."
Or maybe they just thought "let's use the word Indie, that will surely piss a lot of people off and get us a lot of press!"

"Or maybe they just thought "let's use the word Indie, that will surely piss a lot of people off and get us a lot of press!""

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I definitely wouldn't put it past them :). Remember the marketing for Dante's Inferno? http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/06/05/dante039s-inferno-protest-e3-was-s taged-e
a

Sergio: is your contention that the name was sheer coincidence, that EA decided 'hey, we like the word Indie' and 'hey, we like the word Bundle', and decided to call their package the EA Indie Bundle without once considering the relation to the Humble Bundle? I think the blatant piggybacking is an important part of the issue, and one of the elements that has people so upset with EA on this one. Independent of the games in the bundle itself, it leaves the impression that EA is trying to coopt the success of the Humble Bundle folks to hype their own games, and that's Just Not Cool.

"Are people not allowed to express their disapproval anymore without running into a wall of hyperbolic rhetoric?"
I think the answer would be "yes." I remember watching a video once about Jonathan Blow sloooooowly explaining why he thinks Japanese games are lacking. In contrast, Phil Fish simply goes like "f*ck you Japan!"

As for your other question, I don't think I stated that I consider myself "above the fray" as you say, since all I did was to throw a question out there based on an impression (that I'm not the only one getting). Now, if I'd simply said "f*ck you egocentric indie devs!" or something like that, then you can say I'm doing the exact same thing.

Curious to see exactly how far this will go. If I got this straight we are now encountering :

The backlash to the backlash to the backlash to the backlash to the backlash of indies facing off against big publishers (I might be +/- 1 backlash)

Throughout history isn't it the same story? "the little guy verses the big guy". There are plenty of starving artists (painters, writers, musicians, filmmakers, dancers...) who refuse to allow their artistic vision to be "tarnished" by going "commercial", well good on ya, choose the right venue for your art, but don't expect to make money off of it.

I haven't heard any or the big publishers actively torpedoing indie games/projects (other than maybe Zynga and the like being very liberal on the word "barrow") But I get the sense some Indie devs think the large publishers are "in the wrong" for not actively promoting indie games, and I scratch my head at that one.

" But I get the sense some Indie devs think the large publishers are "in the wrong" for not actively promoting indie games, and I scratch my head at that one."

It's not that they aren't actively promoting indie games any more than people complain about car thieves not giving them new cars. It's not what they aren't doing, it's what they are doing.

Okay, here's how I see it.

Forget indie vs non-indie; simply focus on developers. To clear us of this mess we're in, I'm going to talk about a made up industry that sells "sprockets".

Let's say you enjoy making sprockets. Sprockets benefit society, and they earn you a living so you don't become homeless or starve. Other people like making sprockets too. Some people make better sprockets than others, so they receive more for their service. You don't envy them, you befriend them and strive to learn how to improve your craft. This is where competition becomes positive.

Now let's say someone comes along who does not know how to make a sprocket. Let's call him the Middle Man. The Middle Man notices that people like sprockets of higher quality. However, he also notices that, even if there is a sprocket of a high quality, someone might purchase a lower-quality sprocket because they simply don't know the higher quality sprocket exists. So the Middle Man makes a deal with one sprocket creator -- let's call him the AAA Sprocket Creator: let me have a cut of your profits and I can increase your profits such that the cut you get to keep is higher than what you get now. Humans being shortsighted and often selfish, the AAA Sprocket Creator agrees.

So the Middle Man keeps his word and the AAA Sprocket Creator is getting more money. This is happening because the Middle Man is using his clout to fill up shelf space and advertising space for this guy's sprockets. To some extent, he is advertising in places where people did not know about Sprockets and can now fulfill their desire for Sprockets, but that kind of market growth is limited and quickly becomes saturated. Beyond that, he is simply getting the AAA Sprocket Creator's product to be more likely seen by consumers, which while it sounds good for the AAA Sprocket Creator it is making things harder for other sprocket creators in a way that is not beneficial to society like the positive competition of improving quality mentioned earlier.

The Middle Man gives to his pet AAA Socket Creator, but he himself is creating nothing; instead, opportunity is being taken from other sprocket creators. Shelf space and consumer attention is simply being reallocated. No one notices this happening but the Middle Man. The AAA Socket Creator is happy to have more business, and for all he knows he is simply getting this because the market is growing. The other sprocket creators see their sales going down, but they don't immediately know why; their quality hasn't lowered, and they don't see any higher quality sprockets entering the market that could explain their slump. The Middle Man knows exactly what is going on. He is not adding value to the world (he is not creating sprockets, nor is he creating any other form of wealth that other people create to exchange for sprockets), he is simply controlling distribution resources. He is doing this to get rich without having to contribute to society. And since most people are trusting and since this is a complicated maneuver, he gets away with it for a while.

And time passes.

Now, here's where market efficiency and the profit motive start to objectively screw everyone over (except the Middle Man). Notice how I said nothing about the quality of AAA Sprocket Creator's sprockets? They may be good, they may be not so good, they certainly aren't "bad" because there is a minimum level of quality that even the best salesman must work with. But however good they are, the Middle Man knows he can cut costs by making them less good. And he can make up for selling less good sprockets by manipulating the market: by increasing the amount of money put into advertising, or by driving competitors that make better sprockets but haven't found their own Middle Man out of business, thus decreasing the options that consumers have. Seeing this happen, many Sprocket Creators flock to the Middle Man for protection.


Certainly, this is better than going out of business. But they flock at a cost: the Middle Man is quite popular and can get his way. The Sprocket creators are told what to do, and when, and how. They are given less time to make the Sprockets as high quality as they would like, and the Middle Man tells them to do things that they know are not in the customer's best interest. The Middle Man begins putting his corporate logo on the Sprockets so consumer good will goes to him, to keep the sprocket creators from somehow gaining any power. But alas, the sprocket creators do these things, because they can not compete with the Middle Man, and if they fought back the Middle Man would simply proclaim "Okay, you do not have to work for me. This is a free market, and you have the right to continue working wherever you want. This is not slavery, and it is not illegal." And he is right. What he is doing is not slavery by any definition, and it is not illegal, and even worse the public, who understands what is going on even less than the sprocket creators, start hailing him as a "job creator". He says nothing about the sprocket creator that just lost his job when his smaller company, making quality sprockets that he could no longer market due to the Middle Man's marketing tactics, is now working at a quarter of his pay at the Middle Man's new sprocket factory. He works Saturdays and Sundays and hardly sees his wife, and he thinks that she is going to leave him soon, but the Middle Man feels no guilt. This sprocket creator, like every sprocket creator, had a choice to work here or be unemployed. In fact, compared to being unemployed, our wonderful, magical, job creating Middle Man is _actually_ doing him a favor! That he was forced to close shop because of the Middle Man is an unfortunate, dirty little secret that does not make the news.

Other, braver -- or perhaps simply more aware -- Sprocket creators realize exactly what is going on. They realize that the Middle Man is extracting wealth from their market. They realize he is not practicing equivalent exchange -- even though he may offer large amounts of quality assurance for their sprockets here and there, and even though his advertising might actually reach someone who likes the sprockets he creates more than any others occasionally, he has for the most part positioned himself as a demi-god in the market. And the sprocket market, like any market, is a game where the winners continually increase their advantage. Wanting to resist this trend, where prices rise and quality lowers yet Sprocket Creator wages and job stability decrease as wealth is sucked to the Middle Man, some Sprocket creators vow to never use the middle man. They decide to remain independent of him, and loathe or pity those that give him power, for in doing so they hurt the independent sprocket creators even more.

Okay, I'm not good at story telling, but I hope that this at least clarifies the Indie hatred of publishers as well as the actual purpose of the independent/dependent dichotomy, even if it does not cause you to agree with me :]. But even if you don't agree with this take on the game industry (and our industrialized+globalized world in general), I hope you at least understand my hatred of such middle men now. If you do, you understand the hatred of the indies.

Could not the same argument be levied against any other large company in the creative business (film industry, record companies, store shelves, etc.) I'm not sure of the argument here, so I can neither agree or disagree, but how are things different for video games than for any other creative endeavor (television, radio, film, painting, comedy, etc.)? You either cozy up with a commercial entity to promote your product or you let your product speak for itself and hope it can find it's audience.

Some of my favorite bands are on indie labels, and I like it this way, I just don't see them bitching and moaning about it, they produce phenomenal music, and I buy it, no questions asked.

Game devs have more "markets"/ avenues to sell their product than any other creative medium I can think of (Online, Steam, XBox Live markeplace, Android Market, ...). I'm still trying to understand why they "hate" the large companies.

How are corporations "an effect of man's arrogance" exactly?
and how has "EA has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt they do not understand what games are for?"
lot's of vitriol here...I just think it's a waste of time to hate anyone or any thing without some basis other than "they are big, they make money, they are the bad guy" logic.

Yes the same argument could be levied against all those industries.

"Large corporations" have too much control and say over who we are as people. And they are divided from moral grounding. For the vast majority they don't help create a better world.

When a small business grows larger than the original merchants circle of influence and command on any level the small business dies and something other than is created. I believe this new creation in approximation becomes a small limited form of government.

this limited government no longer carries the necessary personal input of it's creator. It is detached. You cannot supplement this ownership via technological devices.

New management/government of these detached entities must be morally and socially acceptable by those under it's lawful designation.

The "business world" doesn't look anything like this.

Businesses/corporations are bought and sold but they are NOT commodities, they are limited government.

"Arrogance" is in thinking in terms of how powerful they are and how much ego that translates to those who control these mini governments, instead of the social responsibility that takes far more precedence.

"Arrogance" is in believing the people and what they do are a commodity instead of community.

"Arrogance" is in believing the greatest company is the most powerful.

This obvious arrogance translates faster, bigger, shinier more expensive veneer. Instead of taking the responsibility to create the best possible solutions, the best possible social dynamics and the highest levels of experience attainable.

EA is a business in the nature of making games, on an interactive medium. A corporate entity of people whos interest should be to make the best possible games for the greatest possible enjoyment of people.

Why else be there? Why labor in a corporation without moral direction?

Why substitute this ~ "$"
For this? ~ "games"

It's a statistical fact, being rich ~ doesn't make you happy in fact quite the opposite.
But games, really good games?

WoW!

EA has immense power to good, and yet what do we see?

A lackluster, uninterested, producer of "shiny" mediochre or worse games.

We the people who buy their games don't even get our monies worth.

They kill the artist and laud the marketer, they scheme and plot to psychologically entwine their audience to hold them ransom instead of create something beautiful.

What a bunch of corrupt bs.

What a lousy, twisted excuse for a corporate identity.

Joshua this is why I never attempted to seek employment with a large publisher and instead took what I learned in university and set out on my own path. I wanted to make cool and fun games not oodles of money for a publisher. I also didn't want to have no creative freedom and a ton of crunch work. Behavior like this (EA's I mean) makes me wish someone would create a "console" completely supported by game developers and not corporations.

@k s

It really needs to happen. As I see it it's a problem of governing people. The passion and support of people for their government country wide vs. varying large scale vs family size needs a complete reformation.

We survive because were motivated under freedom to pursue our goals, but that freedom no longer justifies an old world view that's primarily plantation owner or military in design.

People have on an individual level all sorts of untapped ability to contribute to society. We have to stop rewarding primarily those that move money.

I would love to see something created by the people become a success, but as long as we contend and use the older system we will fall by it's flawed design.

It's nothing short of sports commentator commercialism (dogs humping each other backs wearing suits), an easy to spot fake.

For me personally indie means as you said Alan independent of corporations.

@Slade Villena - It is ok Slade, I am used to your brusque and some what harsh mannerisms. I should clarify as well. I was referring to the idea of Corporate backing in regards to money. Indies do not take money from Corporate Overlords to make their games, music, or what have you.

I actually respect your idea of being a mercenary, but to me it does not really fit. As from Merriam Webster: mercenary - one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service. Does that fit what Indie game developers are?

Well, Indie was a term LONG before the Hipster BS came around and it will be the same LONG after the Hipster BS withers and dies. Being Indie is long standing tradition for artists. Maybe it was not labeled as such, but my definition still stands.

You have a lot of aggression toward an ideal that is not intrinsically attached to the idea of being Hipster.

Is there even a "Hipster" game dev movement? Not that I was ever aware of.Like I said before, being Indie is not about some popular but irrelevant social movement. It is about not taking money from fat cat Corporate Overlords. The funny thing right now is that is looks like we both agree on the ideal, but we are disagreeing about terms. Ironic, no?

Also, saying things like "Go Mercenary, or go home." is very offensive. Not everyone fits into your opinion of how things should work. There is room for everyone here, no matter the opinion.

Good luck on " dominating the corporate machine" or taking the game development market from the Corporate Overlords. It can't be done. They have more money and more resources than you, I, or any person will ever have. Even if we untie under a single standard or group. EA and Activision alone literally have BILLIONS of dollars at their disposal. Thinking of taking down them down is simply a ridiculous idea. As with the Roman Empire the only ones that can ever take them down are themselves.

The only way to "win" is not play their game. Leave them be, don't sign any contracts with them, do no deals with them, be our own movement. Your ideals are ultimately going to be futile. So go ahead and "fight" as much as you want. It is you who are wasting the energy. You are also most likely alienating yourself from a lot of your fellow game devs. So be it. As before, I truly wish you and those that follow your ideals the best of luck.

I would also like to add that being backed by Corporations is not always a bad thing. Most games I like are funded in this manner. Heck, who really thinks that a huge big budget AAA game like Batman: Arkham Asylum or Skyrim could be sourced by Kick Stater? None, least one be Tim Schafer.

The Corporate system works for many game developers. Many as we know are willing to sign on the dotted line to get what they want, which is to make their dreams of huge big budget AAA games. It is all about give and take. Not everyone wants the current system to be taken down. I don't. I just want more options to be had for those that do not wish to partake in the Corporate backed system of development. Things like Kick Stater give these options to those willing to take the financial risk of failure and forge ones own destiny. Freedom is a great thing but it is always risky.

I feel like they want to damage or destroy the credibility of the Indie game market because they see it as a financial threat as a whole.

This is a very pragmatic view, but it still does not change the idea that the devs once backed by EA are no longer Indie in anyway shape or form.

@Alan"the devs once backed by EA are no longer Indie in anyway shape or form." So if I create and awesome piece of art (lets say a painting) completely self funded with my own creative vision using my own resources and show it at a gallery, I am "indie" artist. BUT if some major studio comes in and says "We want to show your work at our gallery, and we'll pay you for the opportunity", if I agree I am suddenly NOT indie?If this is the case maybe we need different degrees of indie, the one you are proposing might be termed "starving indie".

By the way, one of my favorite bands "Fugazi" rebelled against record labels (started thier own) magazines (would not do interviews with magazines that promoted alcohol or tobacco) scalpers (I saw the bassist flip out we he found out a scalper was charging more than the mandated $5 for a ticket) and still found a following (and many bands look up to them for it). I'm just saying your stance is IMHO ridiculous.

@Michael DeFazio - By my definition yes, if a game dev(or any other developer of any kind of product) gets Corporate backing then they are no longer Indie anymore. That is how I see it. Once one signs onto the dotted line with a Corporation as a developer they are no longer independent of influence from said Corporation.

Before signing they are independent, after not so much. To me it is all pretty black and white. If Corporate backing works for you great. I don't think getting backing from EA or any other Corporation is necessarily a bad thing. But please do not muddy the waters by trying to claim independence when it is clearly not the case.

BTW, I know who Fugazi is and like them too. Punk Rock is the epitome of Indie.

@Alan, well we might not agree, but you sir have great taste:)

To describe my stance, I'd say a piece of Art is no longer "Indie" is when it "panders" to corporate interest (Either through direct censorship, coercion, or other means). I don't think that this is exactly clear, but I know it when I see it (i.e. if I ever see my favorite Band "Clutch" appear promoting some crappy business or product I'd be dismayed, however I was thrilled when Mark Lanegan's song "Burning Jacob's Ladder" promoted Rage (didn't like the game much, though).

I don't see business as being "good" or "evil" they are just doing what they can to make money (Nothing wrong with that). If a corporation can take a great product and put it in front of people to get it to sell then I'm all for it. If (however) they tamper with said artist or product to commercialize it, then thats when it's a problem for me.

@Michael DeFazio

there seems to be bait and switch going on here and I feel I need to point it out.

1) There is a huge difference between doing something for greed, not gain and doing something for the intent of goodwill in err or not. there is a huge sidestepping of the social conscious issues here.

2) there is a huge difference in property and social identity.

Youre attempting to point out the lines are indeed blurred, but they are only blurred to those who cannot agree on moral distinction.

When I purchase a product I do not peruse cleverly termed "brands", I peruse how much intellectual forethought went into making a particular product, what that says about the creator, how that reflects on what I can percieve, and how that reflects on what I know of truth.

Being indi from the perspective of someone who is looking for the people and ideas they create is by default an opposing contrast of the system which defies truly divergent thinking and explorative right half of the brain activity and answers.

Here this was linked from another blog but it makes perfect sense here also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U&t=1m50s

@Joshua Oreskovich
Please realize I am not trying to argue (in this post and the previous one) I respect a difference of opinion (hey we all got 'em). In the previous post I was just trying to delineate the difference between my views and Alans.

When you say bait and switch are you referring to EA or some corporation, glomming onto the "Indie" term in order to sell more units? (If so, I'd probably argue that those titles are "Indie", and EA is using their vast marketing expertise to bundle and get these games in the hands of more people). Yes, they are using the "Indie" term, but that's fine, I'm not sure the publisher/developer split, that's not my business. But if they are able to convince me (as a customer) to buy the bundle, they (EA) deserve a cut,(They had to spend money promoting the thing) and likewise the devs get a cut (where they may have gotten $0 from me as a consumer because I may never have heard of said product)

I always assume business does whatever will earn them money in the short and long term (not for "Good" or "gain") I assume greediness by all corporations, but I also think Devs want money too, does that make them "greedy"? (The original devs could altruistically just give the game away)

So funny you liked to a RSA animate Youtube, I love those things, (I've watched em all)
Although I'm not sure how this link (education/divergent thinking) has anything to do with the relationship between Indie Devs and Large Corporations. I'm response I'd say you are promoting "Cultural Capitalism" Check out Slovoj Zizek's "First as Tragedy, then as Farce" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g
(Cliff's notes: It's a critique on the idea that the consumer should "Feel good about consumption", since the very act of consumption carries with it the "good will" of the cause or purpose).

@Michael DeFazio

"" So if I create and awesome piece of art (lets say a painting) completely self funded with my own creative vision using my own resources and show it at a gallery, I am "indie" artist. BUT if some major studio comes in and says "We want to show your work at our gallery, and we'll pay you for the opportunity", if I agree I am suddenly NOT indie?If this is the case maybe we need different degrees of indie, the one you are proposing might be termed "starving indie".""

They are borrowing a 'brand" here to de demonize their intent to squeeze every penny from anyone stupid to purchase product from them.

But they are actually doing more than that because underlying this "transaction" the independent developers must shake hands with the devil to make money. This isn't about profit sharing, making a buck ect. this is about squeezing an idea until it bleeds it's authenticity dry. Lumped over into a heaving mess of a souless, shameless, artless meaningless pop drivel.

that's the actual cost of the transaction. The money is actually attainable elsewhere in more than enough bounty. The loss is self respect and ultimately: real lasting meaningful joy in the work you do which constitutes the vast majority of a man's experience in this life.

When I wake up and go to work each day, I am forced by the system to make ethical and moral choices.

One of those choices is how to sell my wares, and you better believe I make that choice with the utmost honesty and integrity, and the end of each day I get to go home with my self respect, and my morals in everything I do.

The difference is I meet each decision face to face, and my employer knows it. The people that hire me know it.

I am anything besides a perfect man I make a lot of mistakes, and I can't pay for all of them. But you cannot expect this from a corporation that buys and sells people like they are a meaningless, discardable pieces of property to leverage. And we cannot simply pass through life going "it's just the way things work."

Because it can be better, corporations can be completed reformed and re constituted with socially functioning (as best as we fallen beings can) ideas.

The reason I linked that video is because it points to a clear choice to re educate, our education sytem. And points 'toward" reforming at least on a smaller scale,( trust me I'm not a communist or socialist, or left winger) functional marketing ideas. Ones that don't specifically reward the few, but as best as universally possible everyone.

So, you don't think thatgamecompany is indie? (I don't know if they were "funded" directly by Sony, but they certainly used Sony Santa Monica's resources which would have cost them big $).

If it makes a person feel better (i.e. no conflict of interest) to develop complete "Outsider Art" on their own then that is certainly their prerogative (more power to 'em). But getting back to the point of the article, though, I'd say for those same individuals to viciously blast other artists (i.e. call them "Sellouts" or not "Indie") because they partner with a publisher seems like a complete waste of energy. Some of the best art may have never been discovered if their were no promotion of it, and many artists are good at their craft and not promotion.