The article forgot to mention that in blatant opposition to all things indie, there is a $50 submission fee. Rather than truly understanding the indie game movement, PAX and friends have chosen to go the lazy route by only scoring devs that are stupid/desperate/arrogant enough to cough up an entry fee, ignoring the efforts of all developers that really know what it means to be independent.

The other major independent game competition, the IGF, has a $95 submission fee. I suspect the submission fee is largely there to avoid the inevitable influx of seven thousand "look what I did for my senior project see there is a car and you can drive it, isn't it fun" submissions.

Involving money doesn't make it "less indie". I don't think that makes any sense by any definition of indie. (I say this as a developer who considers himself to be indie, and hasn't yet made any money off it.)

I understand the desire to avoid white noise. And in this age it's hard to escape it. But there are game enthusiasts, reviewers, bloggers, etc that have already plied these seas. They have already found not just the best, but also the worst indie games that are available. And then there are the multitude of players of indie games of all types!

So instead I ask...

Why does the contest need to be submission based?
Why does their need to be a fee?

Indie games are everywhere. Should we only rate those that apply in person?

Compared to the IGF I think this is a wonderful thing.

The IGF is for all intents and purposes a joke that rewards those that can skirt the rules and find private non-publisher funding. They rewards games that look like AAA instead of rewarding games that provide a quality entertainment value and showcasing what teams can do that arent attached to big projects.

I for one am glad that PAX is putting in the effort to be a real champion of the indie game movement. Its desperately needed.

I agree with Foz, IGF has really lost its way for a long time now. I've seen year after year of "indie" games with massive budgets (relatively speaking) simply romping over the little guys who often have a little more genius but less polish in their games. They do get it right sometimes but I really think that these competitions should have salary caps or at least break it up into categories:

1) $0 budgets
2) < $100K budgets
3) games over $100K budgets

Regardless of where you get the money from; it should count. Money makes a huge difference and not everyone has the luxury to purge wads of cash for pretty graphics and polish.

ridiculous!

the quality of indie games has simply gone up, and simple re-hash of old games with shitty graphics are simply no longer good enough.

Fez was made for ZERO DOLLARS. and won.
the only money that went into it was the IGF submission.
and if you're serious about making a game, 100$, maybe even split across your small team is nothing compared to the attention you might get if you make it.

other example: crayon physics deluxe. grandprize winner. zero budget.

you guys have no idea what you're talking about.