• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

How Do You Define an "Indie Game"

Z

Zukkoyaki

Member
I'm curious because I see a lot different ideas of what folks consider "indie games" around here.

It seems most define it by the scale of the project; you know, small team and small in design scale and such. Others define indie more literally as in an independent release without the involvement of the publisher.

I go the lack of a publisher route. If we go simply by the scale of the project, things can get messy. Example: Journey.

Journey was made by a really small team and is small in scale. But it was funded and published by Sony Computer Entertainment so I struggle to think of that as an indie game. This line of thinking can be applied to games like Child of Light, Unravel, Ori and the Blind Forest, etc.

I've even seen some call games indie based solely on the developer being independent. By that logic games like Sunset Overdrive and Ratchet & Clank are indie. Personally I don't like that but to each their own.

I don't think there's a wrong answer, I'm just curious as to how others see it!
 
I guess lack of a publisher but also when a game does have a publisher and the investment is not massive so they don't feel the the need to interfere with the devs.

Wow, that was a poorly written sentence.
 
The word has essentially became useless since even if I have a well defined meaning for it (self-funded but not necessarily self-distributed product of a sub-30 people studio) others don't know that.
 
An indie game by definition is an independently funded and published title. It has nothing to do with scale. A major publisher can and do publish small scale games (Unravel, Super Stardust, D4, etc). Those aren't classified as Indie titles within the industry. They're considered 1st party titles.
 
It's really messy, cos if we go by the no publisher route then basically nothing is indie.
I struggle to believe games published by Devolver for example like Ronin aren't indie. Whereas Portal 2 is indie by this definition.
Even looking in other sectors like cinema, Fox Searchlight is considered an indie label.

I personally go by small team and budget, and that sort of undefinable independent spirit being evident. So for example although the budget was much bigger than Braid I'd consider The Witness indie.

Similarly, to me No Man's Sky, Unravel and Journey are indie in my eyes
 
I'd say the definition that's most apt nowadays is:

"A game with a smaller budget made by a small-scale development team (usually <20 people)."

flow, Flower, Bastion, Shank, Limbo, Ori, etc. etc. all had some funding from various sources including bigger publishers, yet it would be a bit silly to not call them indie games now. I think Hollywood's indie films are defined in a similar manner, where sometimes a bigger film studio is throwing some money at an indie, but it's a far cry from what a usual production costs.

A lot of people were asking us if Ori was 'truly' an indie game (frankly, I don't care either way, since being 'indie' doesn't really mean anything) - Ori was funded by Microsoft, but it was made with a very small budget and we all worked from our homes / bedrooms, so I'd personally put it into the same category as the previously mentioned games.
 
L Thammy said:
"Metroidvania"
Click to expand...

I still don't get why people think that there are so many Metroidvania indies out there - I mean, there are, but there's almost never really any good ones, which is one of the reasons why we made Ori in the first place. If there'd be tons of games out there like Super Metroid, or Symphony of the Night I'd love it, but that's just not the case. And people generally seem to be confused about the 'Metroidvania' definition, since games like Dust or Strider don't really fit into that category, at least the way I see it. Metroidvania to me always means that there's a fully connected map where you gain access to various routes over the course of the game by giving players new abilities.
 
AHA-Lambda said:
It's really messy, cos if we go by the no publisher route then basically nothing is indie.
I struggle to believe games published by Devolver for example like Ronin aren't indie. Whereas Portal 2 is indie by this definition.
Even looking in other sectors like cinema, Fox Searchlight is considered an indie label.

I personally go by small team and budget, and that sort of undefinable independent spirit being evident. So for example although the budget was much bigger than Braid I'd consider The Witness indie.

Similarly, to me No Man's Sky, Unravel and Journey are indie in my eyes
Click to expand...

Good call bringing up Devolver. They and some other companies like Adult Swim Games and Klei are really blurring the lines.

thomasmahler said:
I'd say the definition that's most apt nowadays is:

"A game with a smaller budget made by a small-scale development team (usually <20 people)."

flow, Flower, Bastion, Shank, Limbo, Ori, etc. etc. all had some funding from various sources including bigger publishers, yet it would be a bit silly to not call them indie games now. I think Hollywood's indie films are defined in a similar manner, where sometimes a bigger film studio is throwing some money at an indie, but it's a far cry from what a usual production costs.

A lot of people were asking us if Ori was 'truly' an indie game (frankly, I don't care either way, since being 'indie' doesn't really mean anything) - Ori was funded by Microsoft, but it was made with a very small budget and we all worked from our homes / bedrooms, so I'd personally put it into the same category as the previously mentioned games.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input! Seems like it's a hard definition to nail down and really depends on who you talk to.
 
I think its defined as two ways, one is the obvious - developed by a studio that is independent regardless of their size.

The other I think is the type of game. I see the term "indie" as having developed a new meaning for describing a game that doesn't fit well in established genres, or is anachronistic to its time of development (like an NES style, 2D , shmup or adventure game).

So, independent developer, or independent/unique genre/anachronistic styling defines "indie" to me
 
AHA-Lambda said:
It's really messy, cos if we go by the no publisher route then basically nothing is indie.
I struggle to believe games published by Devolver for example like Ronin aren't indie.
Even looking in other sectors like cinema, Fox Searchlight is considered an indie label.
Click to expand...

Cinema is a little different because there's no mechanism for an Indie film to self-distribute to major theater chains. That's why many will only show in art house theaters and film festivals. The other factor is the home release. Unless they sign with a studio, it's very difficult for a small Indie film to be released on blu-ray as they have no manufacturing capabilities.
 
Zukkoyaki said:
Thanks for the input! Seems like it's a hard definition to nail down and really depends on who you talk to.
Click to expand...

The definition should be whatever the official press release from the IP owner is calling it. If Microsoft is calling Ori a first party Microsoft game, then it's a first party game legally because MS owns that IP.
 
Fate_of_Atlantis_artwork.jpg
 
If we're going to get technical, then Braid, Limbo, Fez, and Spelunky HD arent indie games because they were published by Microsoft on XBLA, nor are Hotline Miami, Rain World, and Ghost Song because they are or were published by Devolver and Adult Swim

The fact that a game is being published doesnt change the fact that the team size and such often remains unchanged before and after. Having a publisher doesn't mean you're getting funding and such; usually it means console ports, private playtesting, spots at expos like E3 and PAX, and so on. There are quite a few devs on GAF whose games have gotten picked up by TinyBuild, Devolver, and Adult Swim that can attest to that.

The gaming sphere has changed in huge ways since indie games were first introduced, and our concepts and definitions should evolve as well. Devolver and Adult Swim didnt exist. The notion of developers also have a publishing label like Failbetter, Double Fine, and Team17 didnt exist
 
Indie
Independant
Independant from publisher


To clarify...Independant from publisher input or control on development
 
I generally use the term with the size of the development team in mind at this point, and to a lesser degree the scope of the game. It's hard to draw the line in regards to publishers and such, kind of the "Juno is an 'indie movie' but is most certainly not an independent movie" effect.
 
Mostly something developed without the sense or need to benefit share/stockholders or some other sort of outside entity. An indie game may still be published by a larger firm, but if that firm is not exerting any sort of pressure on the development then I believe the game maintains its independent spirit.
 
A game developed without funding from a major publisher. Completely separate from questions of scale, budget, or value. It's pretty simple.
 
petethepanda said:
I generally use the term with the size of the development team in mind at this point, and to a lesser degree the scope of the game. It's hard to draw the line in regards to publishers and such, kind of the "Juno is an 'indie movie' but is most certainly not an independent movie" effect.
Click to expand...

Even that gets murky at times. No Man's Sky is made by a team of 12, but it's a full $60 retail game with the backing of a major 1st party publisher. The scope is also one that we've literally never seen before.
 
Self funded/ directed/ risk.

Grants/ angel investors/ crowdfunding still makes it indie as long as the creators maintain creative control.
 
5taquitos said:
As More_Badass said above, this would disqualify several of the most popular "indie" games of all time.
Click to expand...
Not really if we limit funding to publication rather than including development. I don't know if MS paid an advance to Team Meat for SMB for example, but the narrative is that the indie devs pay for their own development and get lucky with distribution. I don't think that disqualifies indie status.
 
As with anything indie the term becomes obsolete if you take it literally.

Gaming started with people just banding together and making games from scratch. Basically making games without a safety net.

That's what it represents. The creative aspect of the process is not disturbed by external forces like a publisher.
 
I tend to go via a publisher, but I think a better way would be to define whether the publisher has any actual involvement in the game's development beyond just publishing it. In which case, Journey would qualify, since while they did have a publisher, Sony was content to just let thatgamecompany do their thing on the game, they didn't meddle.

So... small-ish team with no direct involvement or meddling by a publisher.
 
I think the word "indie" isn't very meaningful these days in the videogame industry. The distinction between indie and non-indie was sharper back in the early days of the 360 and PS3.

I also think some people take the word "indie" too literally, and overthink it. Similar to "JRPG".
 
It's weird because I think alot of people think an indie game is like a design choice. Or like the art direction of the game is "indie"
 
5taquitos said:
As More_Badass said above, this would disqualify several of the most popular "indie" games of all time.
Click to expand...
Then they shouldnt really have been called indie games in the first place. I've never seen the term more muddied than in video games and film. If you get paid by a large corporation to develop something, you're not doing it independently. Distribution is a different beast. If you make something and a big corporation offers to distibute it than you independently made it but did not independently distribute it. And from my experience, classifying something as Indie pretty much solely relates to the making of a piece of media and not how it gets out into the public eye.

In music, a record label has to be pretty small to be considered independent, and a lot of bands foot their own bill for the recording and then receive that money back through sales.
 
Generally, I consider an indie game to be a low-to-mid budget game without backing from a publisher.

Obviously, you have outliers like Star Citizen, but I think it captures most of the indie space.
 
I may be wrong on this, but I feel like I remember reading that Journey was only partially funded by Sony, or that its development was covered by TGC, while the actual publishing part (some QA, Localisation, marketing and distribution, etc) was handled by Sony. So technically that could count as an indie game, depending on the definition. But then again, a lot of games, even in the AAA space, use outside investors and aren't fully funded by their publisher alone, so it becomes a bit hard to tell what's truly indie and what isn't.

I basically tend to consider self-published games as indie, but I think most people just judge by the scale of the game, so it kinda became the definition of it.
 
No involvement in the creative process from third-parties. Games can receive publisher funding and still be indie (see: Devolver), whilst developers can be independent and still develop in a non-independent environment (see: Insomniac, Kojima Productions).
 
I define indie games as games that were developed and published without any creative input or financial stakes from major organizations. Therefore I don't consider games like Journey or Ori and the Blind Forest to be indie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
How many games do you complete?
46
318
Fermbiz replied
  • Poll
PC Gamers, How Do You Play First Person Games?
2 3
122
352
rodrigolfp replied
PSALM 2 - A Terrifying Jump Scare Indie Horror Game Where You Feed a Cute Doggie!
Trailer Indie 
0
62
IbizaPocholo replied
How do you legally put your own games on an emulator?
2
82
2K
Setsuna Mudou replied
What Do You Love or Hate About Indie Games?"l
Opinion  2
54
750
Guilty_AI replied
Top Bottom