Dave the Diver, one of the most successful indie titles of the year, is not an indie title
- Thread starter Aquova
- Start date
The price is a big differential as well. £50 on Steam when not on sale.
indie is quickly becoming a meaningless term. they should just categories games by their budget at this point, though im sure same thing would happen there too.
It's the same to me as saying that Sonic Mania would be an indie title. Yes, it has that indie "vibe" and is made by a small studio of people not affiliated with the larger conglomerate, but I don't think anyone would call it an indie game.
You are right, its a great game :) (Definitely not indie though)
Every game has a publisher. Some games the publisher is another company and some it's the same company that developed the game. If you mean they aren't indie because they themselves aren't publishing it, is Fortnite indie? Or cyberpunk?
That sucks. Indie should mean at least some of these things: previously unknown talent or at least relatively unknown, smaller budgets, smaller price point and the arguably only one that matters, no publisher.
But at the same time I'm not gonna begrudge someone calling Dave the Diver an indie if they don't know the publisher because it's also just a feeling kinda thing when describing games. It might not be an indie but it very much looks like one and from what others have described of it, feels and plays like one.
But at the same time I'm not gonna begrudge someone calling Dave the Diver an indie if they don't know the publisher because it's also just a feeling kinda thing when describing games. It might not be an indie but it very much looks like one and from what others have described of it, feels and plays like one.
Including or excluding public funding for regional game development?
Isn't it fair to say that the term has two valid meanings by now? The original one is about the funding and the independent status of the developer, and the other one's more casual and superficial and more focused on the vibes of the game ("if it looks like an indie game, it's an indie game"). You can disagree about the validity of the latter definition, but in practice the term is widely being used that way, so you can disagree all you want, but that's how language evolves.
The fact that there's two definitions also doesn't make the term meaningless as some here have stated. It's just more broadly defined now than the original definition that basically required industry knowledge to be able to properly categorise a game.
The fact that there's two definitions also doesn't make the term meaningless as some here have stated. It's just more broadly defined now than the original definition that basically required industry knowledge to be able to properly categorise a game.
For me, to be considered Indie there are two steps:
1. Are the developers also the publisher of the game?
2. If yes, is that publisher big enough to have multiple full-sized studios under them?
If the answer to the second question is also yes, you're not Indie to me anymore.
1. Are the developers also the publisher of the game?
2. If yes, is that publisher big enough to have multiple full-sized studios under them?
If the answer to the second question is also yes, you're not Indie to me anymore.
I have no stake in this game but what lol
I'd make the claim that there's a major difference between indie games and small games. Indie games nowadays have stuff like marketing budgets and play testing staff. Small games make up 95% of what's on itch.
True but from my experience, it used to be more ignorance and then you corrected it without discussion. Today, there is a debate about what the term "indie game" means. Some people genuinely think that Dave the Diver is an indie game even after you put all the cards on the table.
I think it's more about how giving "indie" mentions to non-indie titles is taking away something from the indie scene and handing it over to the AAA industry, which is unnecessary to say the very least.
Yeah while a broad label I think it still has useful application. To the extent that people tend to have an idea in their minds of what an "indie game" is, it will still be popularly used even if it doesn't fit the term on a more literal level (much like JRPG, not to start up that whole debate :P).
Where it gets dicier is when it comes time to credit the studios making these games, because an "indie-style" game made by a prominent studio and released by a major publisher being lumped in with something made by a 2-person team and released independently is unfair to the latter. But it's such a wide umbrella that it all gets categorized into the same pile.
I think there are four criteria for a game to be "indie":
1) The development studio must be independently owned, not a part of another studio or publisher
2) Development of the game itself wasn't externally funded by another developer or publisher (or other third party)
3) The studio itself isn't publicly traded
4) The studio hasn't published any games it didn't develop itself
I dunno I still feel like that same discussion has always happened. Often contributed to the fact that the strict term "indie" does not matter to most gamers. Sea of Solitude, Unravel, and Fe are all published by EA and are thus not indie. But to a consumer those games are appropriate to place in the same mental bucket as Hades or Hollow Knight. Indie is just synonymous with "small scale game" or "low budget game" or "new retro game" to most people, and as a result "indie" has ended up having new meaning. Kind of like pop music. There's pop as in popular, and then there's actually pop music, a very distinct genre of music. Ed Sheeran is pop music, but it's not pop music.
In other words, I won't hold it against anyone or bother to correct them if they call Dave the Diver an indie game. And I won't feel bad if I call a game indie even though it technically isn't self published.
"or other third party" seems very vague..
There is crowd funding, public funding, bank loans/credits, which would certainly be considered third party funding. If you are talking super small dev scale there could also be funding from friends and family involved, which might be considered third parties aswell.
This is kinda where I'm at. You get too deep into the details, and you'll come out of that hole even more confused/frustrated than you were when you started. LOL
Directed at the other person and reinforcing your point, but I can see how that would be confusing.
Love how this thread is turning out. Absolute mayhem.
What is crucially missing from this discussion, though, is that this is about an award. Less interesting to discuss what "indie game" means is the question what it means that an indie game gets an award.
What does that award represent? Is it meant to boost visibility of independent studios who struggle to get funding? Is it meant to boost visibility of "quirky" games with unconventional mechanics or stories? Does it come with price money attached?
What is crucially missing from this discussion, though, is that this is about an award. Less interesting to discuss what "indie game" means is the question what it means that an indie game gets an award.
What does that award represent? Is it meant to boost visibility of independent studios who struggle to get funding? Is it meant to boost visibility of "quirky" games with unconventional mechanics or stories? Does it come with price money attached?
this game aside, some people talk about indies in a way that feels like you have to be some kind of starving artist to be an indie. self made, no external help, no deals etc. what it means to be indie is not the same as it was when your fav band "sold out" when you were 18 20 years ago now. navigating being an indie creator is drastically different than it was that long ago.
Cuphead was self financed IIRC, like, "we remortgaged our home to fund it" levels of they financed it.
Indie has an actual definition - it doesn't mean low budget, small team, or any of the "it's a genre" nonsense. It quite literally means "produced independent of any major publisher". Dave the Diver is not that. Baldurs Gate 3 is that. It's really not that hard.
It's kinda funny how the tweet in the OP indirectly gave a definition that would would work pretty decently as far as I can tell ("studio can't be directly owned by a billion dollar+ company in terms of yearly revenue", or just a high enough cutoff to catch all the companies we obviously know aren't indie like Koei Tecmo and what not), yet I've seen some definitions that would mean I can't call games like Ultrakill indie just because they happened to hit a certain level of popularity.
Like, c'mon there's gotta be some lax in your definition or we're going to get in very silly places in what games can't be inside the indie barrier.
Like, c'mon there's gotta be some lax in your definition or we're going to get in very silly places in what games can't be inside the indie barrier.
Yes, and I read that. I guess by their definition they go with "unconventional game":
In any case, my call for refocussing the debate went beyond this particular award but awards in general. And moreover, what do we as consumers wish for an award for indie games should represent?
I didn't know how to phrase it. "Other 3rd party" was meant to catch things like being funded by non-gaming companies ("we'll pay you to make a Chex game!") or governments ("we'll pay you to make an army game!"), but not things like banks just giving regular business loans.
I think the budget and size of development studio are the main parameters in classifying what is indie and what is not. A game like BG3 doesn't qualify regardless if it's independently published by its studio. Games like Dave the Diver are in what people started referring to as "triple I" I guess, assuming they didn't get a substantial budget from their big publisher?
Well I think the general idea would be to highlight and give attention to games that don't have the benefit of a large team or a large publisher throwing marketing money behind them. To the extent that people would balk at Baldur's Gate 3 getting some "best indie game" award, despite being developed and published by an independent studio, it has to have some stricter parameters. "Small-to-mid-size developer" as in this case is a start but as we've seen, maybe not as specific as it should be.
It might not be right technically speaking, but I'm not going to bat an eye at anyone for calling something like Grow Home indie.
OP should include additional context. People are clearly hung up on what indie means. But what does indie mean to the group giving out the awards? Someone posted something about a small-mid sized teams. Seems like basic info is not provided that would have been helpful.
There's not much wisdom to be gained from a definition if the way a term is used in practice differs so much from its original definition. You say "it's not so hard", but ask any common gamers about the two games you took as an example, and their answer will most likely be the opposite of your conclusion. And you can say that these people are wrong, but it doesn't change how games are perceived by most as "indie or not" not based on their publisher, but based on their style or scope.
It'd be good if award organisers put out fairly clear cut guidelines as to what they consider indie to allow for fair competition. The one mentioned on page 1 is very fluffy, but at least it's clear they're not going by the traditional definition.
Saw this tweet earlier and was kinda frustrated because now people are suggesting that Dave the Diver and for whatever reason Hi-Fi Rush were falsely marketing their games as "indie", when that was literally never the case:
View: https://x.com/DaveOshry/status/1707925545252708670?s=20
lol, don't blame the devs who make it blatantly obvious they're not "indie" on a gaming award website's category definitions.
View: https://x.com/DaveOshry/status/1707925545252708670?s=20
lol, don't blame the devs who make it blatantly obvious they're not "indie" on a gaming award website's category definitions.
The game has 53,359 user reviews on Steam and is sitting at a 97%. You're overwhelmingly in the minority here. lol
In my opinion they came up with a completely reasonable representation of an indie game. They've just failed to correctly apply the definition they made up (on top of failing to accurately determine and list the publishers for each game). Small to mid sized studios is a sensible caveat to rule out more over the top behemoth projects like BG3, which are absurdly out of sync with the connotation in many people's heads that indie projects exist on the fringes of the industry. If you've become successful enough to sustainably employ 500 people to work on your AAA funded game then I don't see how you qualify as a group independent of the mainstream any more.