Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks "Indie" EA

Markus Persson's Twitter has strong reactions from Mojang's Markus 'Notch' Persson to the oddity of the EA Indie Bundle on Steam, as it would be a stretch to refer to anything related to the giant Electronic Arts as "indie" (in the same stretch of tweets he objects to even calling Mojang an "indie"). Beginning by saying: "EA releases an 'indie bundle'? That's not how that works, EA. Stop attempting to ruin everything, you bunch of cynical bastards," he follows with "Indies are saving gaming. EA is methodically destroying it." He caps this off with a clarification of what he's faulting here: "I got into trouble on the interwebs again! The games in the bundle are good, I'm not questioning them. I'm questioning EA." Thanks Develop.

View
34 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

34. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks "Indie" EA May 4, 2012, 04:57 entr0py
 
If the developer is both not owned by a publisher, and didn't have their game funded by a publisher, I'm totally comfortable calling them indie. Even if they end up making something good enough that they can attract a major distributor.  
Avatar 55038
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks May 3, 2012, 19:51 Bhruic
 
Do you even comprehend what independent means.

Yes, but you don't. A company can hire an independent contractor, for example, without him losing his independence. Simply having a business relationship with someone else doesn't automatically remove independence.

In this specific case, the standard tends to be "not financially backed" by a publisher. Which would be the case if the project was self-funded. How it is later distributed is pretty irrelevant.

What you are effectively trying to claim is that a project could be an entirely indie game during the design, during the creation, and up to the final product, but once it was fully complete, if they asked a publisher to distribute it, it would automatically lose the "indie" title. Doesn't really make sense.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks May 3, 2012, 19:44 Closed Betas
 
No you can't dude, Independent is Independent.. There is not a
"personal" choice to this terminology. Do you even comprehend what independent means.. Thats the whole exact point of the term, to be INDEPENDENT of the PUBLISHER. ANY PUBLISHER, to be your OWN publisher... DUH
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks May 3, 2012, 19:28 Prez
 
Slashman wrote on May 3, 2012, 19:19:
You mean like how EA wasn't directly involved in the making of Mass Effect 2 and 3? Or Dragon Age 2? How they surely gave Bioware total creative freedom?

*SNIFF SNIFF* Smells like sarcasm in here...
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks May 3, 2012, 19:28 Bhruic
 
You mean like how EA wasn't directly involved in the making of Mass Effect 2 and 3? Or Dragon Age 2? How they surely gave Bioware total creative freedom?

You mean like how EA actually bought Bioware, and therefore completely owned the company, and how the degree of freedom they did or didn't give them is completely irrelevant?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks May 3, 2012, 19:27 Bhruic
 
The whole thing about Indie companies is to stop the bleeding from what publishers are doing to the industry

Um, no, that may be what you've decided it is, but you certainly don't speak for everyone. There are quite a few indies who do it that way because it gives them more creative control and freedom for their project. If they can retain that, and still get the benefits of having a larger company distribute for them, where's the downside?

You can still be independent from a publisher as long as the publisher isn't funding your game. If you fund it yourself, and use EA as a distributor, then you are still independent from them.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks May 3, 2012, 19:20 Closed Betas
 
for those that think going to a bigger publisher is okay as long as it was developed independently.. That's just wrong.

The whole thing about Indie companies is to stop the bleeding from what publishers are doing to the industry. Thats why they choose this route.. No one makes a game then says, hi please sell this for us.. We funded it ourselfs and failed to sell it.. And guess what, then its no longer an Indie.. Its OBVKOUSLY no longer independent of a publisher lol.. <insert rude awakening wakeup bitch slap here> sorry not trying to be rude, but seriously.. if you can't see this obvious situation, something is wrong in your brain.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks May 3, 2012, 19:19 Slashman
 
You mean like how EA wasn't directly involved in the making of Mass Effect 2 and 3? Or Dragon Age 2? How they surely gave Bioware total creative freedom?  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks May 3, 2012, 19:16 Closed Betas
 
Ugh, you are wrong in your thought process.

Just bring it down to its core level, you are branded now in the term Indie... What is indie?

Its independent publisher, that means, you are the independent publisher... So yes, if EA is publishing games and then marketing "Indie" its obvious exploitation as usual from what we know is pure evil.

EA was realized years ago, they would strip fun out of the game, so they can sell the same game again a year later. We see them buy out rights, we see them buy out companies.. It's over... they bled the turnip, now we get to sit back and watch them crumble in their own stupidity.. I will enjoy these next couple years

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks May 3, 2012, 18:24 Bhruic
 
For me, indie means that it is not attached to a publisher in any form or way as most indies are and it also means that the developers have adopted a "bedroom coder" kind of culture that existed in the 80s and early 90s. That is what constitutes an indie for me, no publisher in any part of the development process and being a developer or a small or medium group of developers working without any interference from anyone other than themselves and perhaps the community that follows their game.

Fair enough, but that seems a bit restrictive to me. I look at it like I look at indie movies. They get made independently, but that doesn't mean they don't get distributed by the bigger companies. As long as the bigger companies aren't involved in the project beyond distribution, I don't see why the movie would be any less "indie" than a project that was distributed by someone else.

Same here. If EA is involved in the design, creation, or implementation stage, then no, I wouldn't consider it an indie game. But if they are effectively just the distributor for a finished project, then I can't see why the game would be any less indie for having them involved at that stage.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks "Indie" EA May 3, 2012, 18:19 space captain
 
good thing this guy already made his money  
Go forth, and kill!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks May 3, 2012, 18:15 ASeven
 
In the end this all comes down to what each person defines as indie and hence why people argue over a word that has different personal meaning for each and every one of us.

For me, indie means that it is not attached to a publisher in any form or way as most indies are and it also means that the developers have adopted a "bedroom coder" kind of culture that existed in the 80s and early 90s. That is what constitutes an indie for me, no publisher in any part of the development process and being a developer or a small or medium group of developers working without any interference from anyone other than themselves and perhaps the community that follows their game.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks May 3, 2012, 18:09 Bhruic
 
Wut? By your logic then all indies are therefore publishers because indies self-publish a lot (Last URL shows no publisher, rendering your sweeping generalization null by the way), making them publishers like EA and Activision.

Finding one example doesn't affect a generalization - that's why it's called a "generalization". It might not always be true, but generally speaking, it's true for most of them.

And yes, I agree, it's silly to use such logic. That is, in fact, why I was pointing it out, because I do think it's silly. Just having a publisher doesn't immediately remove the "indie" label, because as you say, all indies at the very least have to self-publish.

If a developer makes a game independent of EA, and then lets EA publish it, I don't see why the game can't be considered an "indie" game. As long as EA wasn't involved in the design/creation process, they can't be claimed to have had any influence over the project.

Apparently Valve agrees, as demonstrated by the number of "big name" published games that are in their "indie" group.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks May 3, 2012, 17:01 Quboid
 
A semantic argument about semantics. God love the internet.  
Avatar 10439
 
- Quboid
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks May 3, 2012, 16:18 Prez
 
Part of the problem is that everyone has at least a slight different definition of what constitutes an "indie". By the loosest interpretations I've read, Half-Life 2 could be called an 'indie'.

Regardless of how you define it, however, I don't see anyone making a reasonable case at all for how EA can get away associating in any way with indies, which is essentially the crux of Notch's statements. EA is the antithesis of "indie".
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks May 3, 2012, 15:37 ASeven
 
Bhruic wrote on May 3, 2012, 14:44:
Which I then clarified as being because all of the games on Steam are listed as having publishers. If I never claimed Steam was a publisher, then pointing out that Steam isn't a publisher does nothing to refute my point.

Wut? By your logic then all indies are therefore publishers because indies self-publish a lot (Last URL shows no publisher, rendering your sweeping generalization null by the way), making them publishers like EA and Activision.

Right. Quit smoking that bad stuff, man, it fries up your mind.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks May 3, 2012, 15:34 Funkinator
 
Teddy wrote on May 3, 2012, 12:49:
Yet Valve still could have refused to title it an indie bundle. It is their store, after all.

Why would they refuse? EA wants to name it bundle "EA Indie Bundle" they can. It is dumb of them.

This is how I head it went down:
Valve was like "Yo guys, people don't like you. Lets not mention 'EA'."
EA was like "Nah, people love us."
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks May 3, 2012, 14:44 Bhruic
 
No it's not. And the word you were looking for is "semantics".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantic

1.
of, pertaining to, or arising from the different meanings of words or other symbols: semantic change; semantic confusion.


So yes, "semantic argument" is an entirely correct way to phrase it.

SimplyMonk never said whether they might have other publishers. He said Steam is not a publisher.

Yes, that was said in response to my post. But what you missed in your rush to display your ignorance, is that I never claimed that Steam was a publisher. I said that if we preclude games with publishers from being indie games, all the games on Steam have to be precluded. Which I then clarified as being because all of the games on Steam are listed as having publishers. If I never claimed Steam was a publisher, then pointing out that Steam isn't a publisher does nothing to refute my point.

This comment was edited on May 3, 2012, 14:52.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks May 3, 2012, 14:36 Prez
 
That's not how that works, EA. Stop attempting to ruin everything, you bunch of cynical bastards,"

Hey when he's right he's right.

And for the love of Christmas, Steam is no more a publisher than Best Buy.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: Quoteworthy: Notch Knocks May 3, 2012, 14:22 Endo
 
Bhruic wrote on May 3, 2012, 12:46:
SimplyMonk wrote on May 3, 2012, 12:19:
Bhruic wrote on May 3, 2012, 12:14:
If having a publisher automatically removed you from consideration as an "indie" game, then every game on Steam automatically loses that label.

Steam is in no way a publisher. They are a digital storefront and distribution network. That is not the same in any sense of the word. Except the wrong sense.

That's just a semantic arguement.
No it's not. And the word you were looking for is "semantics". If you were correct, and it was just an argument about semantics, that would mean that Steam actually is a publisher in all but name, which is not the case at all. Therefore, you're completely wrong.
Steam itself isn't a publisher, but if you look at the game descriptions for indie games, they all list either a separate publisher, or the developer as the publisher. In either case, they are listed as having an actual publisher.
Which has nothing to do at all with the post you responded to, or your claim about the post being "just about semantics". SimplyMonk never said whether they might have other publishers. He said Steam is not a publisher.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo