Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

Discussion of the term 'independent'

Started by Clinton R. Nixon, February 02, 2003, 11:12:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic


It would be interesting, at least as a mental exercise, to postulate what effect expectations of a competitive level of profitability brings to definition of Indie.

One could argue that the minute you start making profit a priority that you have become beholden to that entity known as "the market".  Achieving or preserving that profit level may require the creator to take action that he would rather not but feels is necessary for "success".

Now technically, it is still the creator/owner making the choice.  But in practice the end result of what it means to the game really isn't that much different than if the undesired changes were demanded by a corporate marketing exec.

Not that I'm challenging the definition, but I think it would be a fair point to suggest that to be truly independent a game designer also has to be free from market pressures as well as internal corporate-guy pressures.

Ron Edwards

Hi Ralph,

That would fly if I included that business about "freedom from X" in the definition ... which isn't there. Like "innovative," that particular feature is an inference that people project into the definition, but isn't part of it.

Theoretically, the publisher of an independent game could be henpecked by his wife and brother-in-law until he knuckled under to them in every possible business decision. Let's he's the least "free to choose" guy on the planet. Is his game still independent? If it meets my three criteria, yeah.