Notch Dumps on EA "Indie Bundle"

[Darkmantle]

What is that even supposed to mean?

I believe he's taking a shot over all of this website's journalists shitting on the "re-take mass effect" thing.

you know, throwing a hissy fit because people were "demanding" bioware change the ending, getting all mad and calling gamers names, saying we were setting the industry back and destroying artistic integrity etc etc. You know, fire and brimstone stuff.


well no one had a gun to bioware's head, so I guess you guys should have just cooled it right? I mean, we weren't invading the offices and taking hostages, there wasn't a GUN to anyone's head.

Maybe practice what you preach?


ah well, still defending EA, at least it's logically consistent eh?

What Andy said wasn't in defense of EA. A person calling people out on something doesn't mean that that person is on the side of the thing that the other people are against.

It seems to be that the majority of the people complaining about EA, are people that keep buying from EA and complain about them with every purchase.

What Andy was getting at is that at this point, it is the fault of the consumer, because they keep buying EA's games. Yes EA in the distant past did things that these people liked, but since they are now, then they should just move on to another company.

I use to like Sierra Mist, 7UP, and Canada Dry Ginger Ale, but ever since they went "all natural", I think they taste like crap. So, I don't buy or drink them anymore.

What I'm getting at is that these people that continually buy EA games and complain every time, are like if I kept buying those drinks and drinking them even though I think they taste like crap. I moved on and found other drinks I liked. They need to move on and find other games they might like from different companies.

Moving on, I will add that what you said about this site's journalists is wrong. The only person I've seen that fits the picture of what you said, "fire and brimstone stuff", is Movie Bob.

Guess what, he isn't a journalist. He is a critic/commentator. What he does for this site is make things that might entertain people, and also he expresses his views.

""What Andy said wasn't in defense of EA. A person calling people out on something""
funny the "something" was talking shit about EA.

"Fire and brimstone stuff" was a bit of hyperbole, I'll grant that, but most people on this site talked in direct contempt for retake mass effect, Andy here included. Bob is just the most hilarious example. And I'm allowed to express my views too, and my view is that bobs views were hilariously misinformed.


and while he may have had a point about people still buying EA games, success is still not an accurate measure of who's right.

example (fictional scenario): if EA makes a game, calls in indie even though it was developed in house, and people call them out on calling the game "indie", an appropriate defence is not "well people still bought it". Great so people were either tricked or don;t care. Doesn;t make it right though.

 

[The.Bard]

When did he claim he was an arbiter? He just tweeted. Everyone and his grandma has talked about the EA indie-bundle today and called them out for it. The Escapist did it earlier today. Why does him tweeting bother you. Notch didn't make a statement, he didn't write a blogpost or article, he gave his opinion in a tweet. How is that different from you giving your opinion in a comment? He don't put his tweets on the front page of the Escapist, the Escapist did that. I just don't get why this guys opinion always gets blown out of proportion.

That's exactly my problem. He tweeted under the false pretense of "Oh, I had noooooo ideaaaaa". This isn't the first time Notch's tweets have been brought up as news; he doesn't get to play the naive card and use "I just tweeted" as a defense. He should assume by now that anything he tweets IS an article. Whereas if my comments on this forum made cnn.com, I could be rightfully shocked that someone thought my stupid opinion was newsworthy.

Case in point, check out nfl.com. They are running twitter reactions to Junior Seau's death from other nfl players. Seriously. Because news about someone passing is no longer enough. Now we need to cull the masses and get their twitter reactions.

So yea, Notch knew someone would pick this up. If he didn't, then he has a serious intelligence issue to sort out. But first he needs to pull the giant stick out of his butt. The one that says "Starving indie developers feed orphans, and organized properly funded companies who employ thousands murder grandmothers."

That's bull. Yes, he probably knew that his tweets would get attention, but he doesn't have a responsibility to keep his mouth shut. He's a right to his oppinion and every right to speak it. Maybe you're right and he is in fact no-one important in the world of gaming, then it is media who should stop listening to him, not he who should stop using social media.
Personaly, I enjoy that we have one guy in the gamers industry who spekas his mind without going to the PR machine even if I don't agree with him all the time

Well, for starters, let's make sure we're on the same page. I'm NOT trying to say he's a nobody in gaming. Minecraft made a metric ton of cash. Dude has some serious clout.

My problem isn't with his opinions (other than I usually disagree). He has every right to air them; I'm not trying to imply he needs to shut his mouth or that this being picked up by the media is his fault. (But yes, I certainly wish he would shut his trap.)

My problem is only that he's playing dumb to it and treating us like we're stupid. He's acting like he didn't KNOW this would happen. Malarky! Granted, I don't like Minecraft, and yes, I think "indies will save gaming" is quite possibly the most idiotic thing I've heard this week. But at the end of the day, I still think he has a right to voice his thoughts, no matter how stupid it seems to me.

Like I said, my only legit complaint here is him playing stupid to the fact. If Notch wants to THINK he's smarter than us, fine, but I will NOT abide him treating us like we're stupid. THAT is the only bull around here.




... OR IS IT?!?!?!

 

[matrix3509]

Hate to break your self-righteous justification, but not once did he used the word 'entitled'. In fact, the only ones to use that word in this tread have used it to complain about being called entitled, and not actually call someone else entitled...

The level of self-entitlement and superiority complexes in this thread is just mind boggling.

No he didn't use it in direct response to me. He still used it as a perjorative toward the rest of the thread that doesn't agree with him. Again its the catchphrase of the industry apologists ("Hay guys it makes money so if you don't like it you are entitled. LOLZ."). Its starting to become the Godwin's Law of videogame discussion.

Now that you've learned how to read, come back when you have an actual argument.

 

[WanderingFool]

With the only problem being that EA are "bringing games to the masses" by draining developers of smaller games until they're no good to them anymore, and then ditching their lifeless husk like some form of money vampire.

They did it with Bullfrog, they did it with C&C, and they're doing it with Bioware.

Im not going to dredge up anything more, but I think all problems people are having with Bioware right now can be attributed to EA in some fashion.

Yet, Im gonna be honest. While I see EA as the curropting force, Im still not quite sure if its strictly EA's fault.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

2.) Some people

I didn't buy either Mass Effect 3 nor Dragon Age 2 after hearing about the changes and problems those games brought to their series. I figure i'm not the only one.

If nobody complains the company will just assume everything is alright, though EA and Bioware have an history of plugging their ears and eyes to even the most friendly critiques anyways. Or do I have to get a job as video game journalist or game developer/publisher before i get to have an opinion?

Key word in bold. I wasn't saying all people that complained. At this point we know they won't listen because some people while still complaining, are still buying there games. At that point the complaining means nothing to the company, because why change when the majority of people complaining are still buying.

Lastly, I never said you had to do anything. You just happened to read what I said and thought I must be talking about you, though what puzzles me is that by what you said, you don't meet the criteria of the people I was talking about.

Snip

Swing and a miss.

The people Andy was calling out were the people that continuously buy from EA and keep complaining.

The point is, at this time it is their fault for keeping on buying from EA. It makes no sense for people to keep buying from a company that they know isn't going to meet their standards.

My philosophy is give a company one extra chance, then if the very next time I buy from them and I don't like the product, I move on. Basically, buy once, complain, buy the second time, move on if it is bad.

I bought Dragon Age: Origins because my friends really liked it, I found out I didn't because I thought it was a broken and outdated game. I gave them a second chance with Dragon Age 2, and I loved it, I think it is worlds better than DA:O because they fixed all the things I had problems with. I also love ME1 and ME2, and I like ME3(only mildly disappointed by the ending, far from enough to complain or give up on EA/BioWare.)

When it comes to gaming, I haven't gotten to a point were I move on from a company because of bad things done. The reason is that they have to really do something insanely abysmal for me to move on. Everything EA/BioWare has done since DA:O has been mild annoyances, not enough to warrant extreme complaint or not buying from them again.

Even if I felt the same way as the people continuing to complain about EA while still buying from them, I would have moved on and thought they were crazy for not moving on as well.

Lastly, I didn't say you couldn't express your views about Movie Bob, just don't lump him together with the journalists at the Escapist, because it isn't true or a correct comparison.

 

[matrix3509]

Oh, sorry. I only went back about 4 or 5 pages of you continuing to discuss things with him before I noticed he used the word that you used to end the discussion for no reason other than being pig-headed.

Any excuse to feel persecuted, I guess.

Despite my hostile tone, I don't actually feel persecuted. I get pissed when apathetic people with no argument use the word as a catch all for people who are angry at what gamer apathy has allowed this industry to become: A hulking behemoth that worships the almighty dollar and more than willing to pull the heart out of studios I love on a sacrificial altar to satisfy their lust for more money.

Those that don't learn history are doomed to repeat it, the bigger they are, the harder they yadda, yadda, yadda, more metaphors.

 

[matrix3509]

Oh, sorry. I only went back about 4 or 5 pages of you continuing to discuss things with him before I noticed he used the word that you used to end the discussion for no reason other than being pig-headed.

Any excuse to feel persecuted, I guess.

Despite my hostile tone, I don't actually feel persecuted. I get pissed when apathetic people with no argument use the word as a catch all for people who are angry at what gamer apathy has allowed this industry to become: A hulking behemoth that worships the almighty dollar and more than willing to pull the heart out of studios I love on a sacrificial altar to satisfy their lust for more money.

Those that don't learn history are doomed to repeat it, the bigger they are, the harder they yadda, yadda, yadda, more metaphors.

You say you don't feel persecuted, but then you try to meta-invoke Godwin's Law, like you're comparing being called entitled to being compared to Hitler...

And maybe you should consider that perhaps the studios you loved died not because EA bought them out, but that EA bought them out because they were dying...

They died for neither of those reasons. They died because publishers like EA squeeze every bit of life out of a studio that they can. Taking advantage of developers passion to make a quick buck, then leading them to the slaughterhouse to slit their throats. One need only read about Free Radical Design, to see what publisher are. How about how Maxis is now a zombie, reanimated solely for the purpose of cashing in on Sim City nostalgia, it'll be put down like a rabid dog as soon as the game is on shelves.

I wish you'd stop trying to pretend I said things I didn't say. I said Godwin's Law because every gaming discussion on this forum, given enough time, defaults to the apathetics calling everyone else entitled. It got old a long time ago.

 

[Callate]

You can try to tell the masses that gaming "could be better." But if the masses tell you to fuck off because they're having fun, who's right?

Wall-of-text follows.

Honestly, I think there's two sets of issues. One, I as a consumer can do very little about; the other, as a consumer I can do almost nothing about. Neither is good for the industry, the medium, or the consumers. Both to some degree can be laid at EA's feet, though you'd be right to set some of the blame on the consumer as well, whether their response is one of ignorance or apathy.

EA's behavior of late doesn't so much smack of stockpiling money as of control. Origin. Origin's EULA. Project Ten Dollar. Online Passes. The consumption of smaller studios. The "re-envisioning" of older franchises, sometimes to the cries of distress of their original fanbases. And... the co-option of the "indie" descriptor.

All of this smacks of a desire for control: control of the brands, control of exactly how the audience uses their product, control of the distribution. Facebook? Got to have a tie-in game. Flash? Got to have a tie-in game. Independent scene? Got to have our brand out there. Keeping plates spinning, staying on the cutting edge, having a finger in every pie.

From a MBA standard, this makes sense. In many industries, it might well make sense. In this one, it's riding a wave and hoping it doesn't break over your head before you reach the shore. You're building an audience, but you're alienating the older one almost as quickly. And the momentum on which you're riding- and continuing to exist- is absolutely dependent on your not making a significant mis-step on your major properties. The "control" EA is exerting comes at a significant cost to its goodwill, and means that if, for example, a eight-figure-budget game like Modern Warfare fails, you're going to have to eat it. A resentful fanbase isn't going to offer second chances.

I am going to be very, very interested to see how Bioware's take on C&C:Generals comes out. Many Bioware loyalists seem angry with Bioware over Dragon Age 2 or Mass Effect 3, and I think almost no one was very happy with C&C 4. Bioware is going to be going in with two strikes already marked, and if they can't pull this off... Especially if Star Wars: The Old Republic subscriptions taper off... I'm thinking you might not see so much of the Bioware logo anymore.

Personally, I've stopped buying EA games, and told them why. For what it's worth. I don't hate EA; I would genuinely be pleased if they could get their head out of their ass and do the right thing by their customers. They've made some great games, and they still do. But what they're doing now is going to destroy them, and possibly cause collateral damage in the process, not to mention all the little producers they've eaten who will vanish.

But that brings us to the second set of problems, the ones that throwing my tiny "no!" vote won't do diddly about.

EA isn't dependent on Facebook games, or Flash games, or independent games. EA lives and dies on the big-ass AAA franchise games. And on that score, I think it's probably closer to being THQ than anyone realizes.

Along with giants like Activision, it has created a model where "tentpole games" are where it's at. MBA thinking again: you don't take risks where your bread and butter is concerned. You look for the sure bet, preferably one with a big payoff. If it can't become a franchise, don't bother.

This thinking is about to cause them to self-destruct.

If it's hard to see a big game fail now, despite the anti-piracy and anti-lawsuit provisions of Origin, despite all the DLC, despite the Online Passes to head off big bad Used Games, despite hedging every bet there was to stick a shrub on, it's going to be mortal to see a big game fail when the next console generation comes about.

Filling a Blu-Ray disk with 1080P, possibly 3D-enabled content created with a painfully new toolset that has to satisfy the people who have just clunked down several hundred dollars for their shiny new consoles is going to be an expensive process. It's probably going to require a price-hike at the store, a new wave of "Project Ten Dollar"-like initiatives, or both.

Sooner or later- probably sooner- a "tentpole game" is going to fail to meet the exaggeratedly high expectations that come with higher prices, "next gen" tech, and a "blockbuster" publisher. And that may well be crippling.

A smaller company that wasn't dependent on these tactics might weather the storm. Even a bigger company that allowed its subsidiaries more independence and wasn't trying to mine every new offering for franchise potential might have a chance. All evidence points to EA being neither of these things right now, nor becoming that in the future.

So, EA. Abusing its customers for control (quite possibly an illusion of control) at the cost of goodwill it will need to buffer itself from future failures. Cannibalizing smaller studios for their past good work, yet often failing to recognize the specifics of what made that work successful. Relying on franchises in a world where that model is threatening to become a dinosaur, even as "Angry Birds" and the like are increasingly begging the question of whether our enjoyment/cost model is skewed.

You can be very successful, and still sow the seeds of your annihilation even at the height of your success. If you limit your perceptions of what constitutes "success", you all but insure that you will do just that.

For every Batman, a Batman and Robin.

For every Model T, an Edsel.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

$100 says every single one of these "EA is shit" wagon hoppers shops at a large grocery chain--the kind that buys out small business and tries its best to ensure they retain competitive edge on the market. $100 also says the clothes they wear and the shoes they walk in were made and then imported from China in workshop conditions.

Yes, please do complain and tell us how bad EA is. You're not a hypocrite lacking perspective at all.

 

[Varya]

When did he claim he was an arbiter? He just tweeted. Everyone and his grandma has talked about the EA indie-bundle today and called them out for it. The Escapist did it earlier today. Why does him tweeting bother you. Notch didn't make a statement, he didn't write a blogpost or article, he gave his opinion in a tweet. How is that different from you giving your opinion in a comment? He don't put his tweets on the front page of the Escapist, the Escapist did that. I just don't get why this guys opinion always gets blown out of proportion.

That's exactly my problem. He tweeted under the false pretense of "Oh, I had noooooo ideaaaaa". This isn't the first time Notch's tweets have been brought up as news; he doesn't get to play the naive card and use "I just tweeted" as a defense. He should assume by now that anything he tweets IS an article. Whereas if my comments on this forum made cnn.com, I could be rightfully shocked that someone thought my stupid opinion was newsworthy.

Case in point, check out nfl.com. They are running twitter reactions to Junior Seau's death from other nfl players. Seriously. Because news about someone passing is no longer enough. Now we need to cull the masses and get their twitter reactions.

So yea, Notch knew someone would pick this up. If he didn't, then he has a serious intelligence issue to sort out. But first he needs to pull the giant stick out of his butt. The one that says "Starving indie developers feed orphans, and organized properly funded companies who employ thousands murder grandmothers."

That's bull. Yes, he probably knew that his tweets would get attention, but he doesn't have a responsibility to keep his mouth shut. He's a right to his oppinion and every right to speak it. Maybe you're right and he is in fact no-one important in the world of gaming, then it is media who should stop listening to him, not he who should stop using social media.
Personaly, I enjoy that we have one guy in the gamers industry who spekas his mind without going to the PR machine even if I don't agree with him all the time

Well, for starters, let's make sure we're on the same page. I'm NOT trying to say he's a nobody in gaming. Minecraft made a metric ton of cash. Dude has some serious clout.

My problem isn't with his opinions (other than I usually disagree). He has every right to air them; I'm not trying to imply he needs to shut his mouth or that this being picked up by the media is his fault. (But yes, I certainly wish he would shut his trap.)

My problem is only that he's playing dumb to it and treating us like we're stupid. He's acting like he didn't KNOW this would happen. Malarky! Granted, I don't like Minecraft, and yes, I think "indies will save gaming" is quite possibly the most idiotic thing I've heard this week. But at the end of the day, I still think he has a right to voice his thoughts, no matter how stupid it seems to me.

Like I said, my only legit complaint here is him playing stupid to the fact. If Notch wants to THINK he's smarter than us, fine, but I will NOT abide him treating us like we're stupid. THAT is the only bull around here.




... OR IS IT?!?!?!

Fair enogh, I misunderstood what you ment. I still can't see what you meen though. Playing dumb? Acting like we're stupid? I just don't get that from his tweets.

 

[Andy Chalk]

OMGWOT

My short response to your huge message: EA destroying itself, which I can accept as a valid and credible perspective, does not equal EA destroying gaming, which is nonsense.

Your remark about "control" is interesting, but it's hardly exclusive to EA. Call of Duty Elite is probably the most obvious example of an even more egregious system of control and from the PC perspective, Ubi's always-on DRM is up there too. But EA is the whipping boy because it's cool to hate on EA. Notch does, after all.

I didn't like Dragon Age: Origins. Haven't bought another Dragon Age game. I loved (loved!) the Mass Effect series, not a huge fan of the ending, nor did I care for the shift from "Commander Shepard" to "Commander Whoever the hell you want to be because we have no actual commitment to the character" in the third game, and assuming there are future games in the franchise EA will really have to sell them to me. Waiting for Syndicate to come down in price before I make a move on that one.

Call me crazy but I find that basing my purchases on what I think of actual games, rather than some silly, arbitrary assessment of whether or not a company is "evil," is a very effective way to ensure that I end up with the games I like, and avoid the ones I don't.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Hang on a minute.

Wasn't this exactly what Extra Credits said EA should do? Make an Indie arm to take care of "innovative" and "new" games while EA proper makes AAA games?

And in that case what would you rather have?

That EA dies or EA may begin to make interesting games?

I'd rather EA dies.

Near every game series I loved, particularly Command and Conquer, was bought by them and ruined. I want to see EA bankrupt so their intellectual properties and copy right can fall into hands that won't abuse them and actually care for them.

So you want to see EA bankrupt because of a personal vendetta?

Fair enough.

Although it should be said that Westwood was the cause of Westwoods fall. Not EA. Westwood had made not only one but three monumental failures before EA pulled the plug on them. And C&C 4 (I didn't like it either) was made the way it was (no base-building and no resource collection) because fans and critics always complained that each C&C was too much like the previous (gameplay-wise there was little difference between the original C&C, the C&C Red Alert and C&C 3).

Also it should be said one of the most popular C&C games wasn't made by Westwood proper but by other EA subsidiaries (I'm talking about Red Alert 2 which was made by Westwood Pacific which was an entirely different studio, and then there was C&C Generals which was made by EA-LA).

Also I actually liked C&C 3 and Red Alert 3. Gameplay wise they were excellent and design-wise they were great. Sure the story of C&C 3 wasn't top notch but Red Alert had so much "Narm Charm" that you just had to love it.

 

[mjc0961]

I don't see how major publishers like EA are doing anything more than bringing gaming to the masses.

So I guess all those terrible business practices don't count, then? Notch is right about one thing: EA is methodically destroying gaming.

And your later post suggesting that it's customers who are ruining things is beyond insane. People aren't saying yes please, they're just trying to lube up their assholes as much as possible so that it hurts less when EA rapes them again.

Hang on a minute.

Wasn't this exactly what Extra Credits said EA should do? Make an Indie arm to take care of "innovative" and "new" games while EA proper makes AAA games?

And in that case what would you rather have?

That EA dies or EA may begin to make interesting games?

EA dies, please. Plus, since when did people think that listening to anything Extra Credits says is a good idea? They can't even tell the difference between a first person and third person shooter. They don't know jack about gaming. Stop listening to them.

 

[Nikolaz72]

I don't see how major publishers like EA are doing anything more than bringing gaming to the masses.

So I guess all those terrible business practices don't count, then? Notch is right about one thing: EA is methodically destroying gaming.

And your later post suggesting that it's customers who are ruining things is beyond insane. People aren't saying yes please, they're just trying to lube up their assholes as much as possible so that it hurts less when EA rapes them again.

Hang on a minute.

Wasn't this exactly what Extra Credits said EA should do? Make an Indie arm to take care of "innovative" and "new" games while EA proper makes AAA games?

And in that case what would you rather have?

That EA dies or EA may begin to make interesting games?

EA dies, please. Plus, since when did people think that listening to anything Extra Credits says is a good idea? They can't even tell the difference between a first person and third person shooter. They don't know jack about gaming. Stop listening to them.

They are as informative as the Jimquisition. Maybe a bit more so. So I guess people have been listening to them since they started? More so when they came onto escapist.

 

[Callate]

My short response to your huge message: EA destroying itself, which I can accept as a valid and credible perspective, does not equal EA destroying gaming, which is nonsense.

I don't think it's nonsense, though I agree it's an exaggeration. With the amount of competition and cross-pollenization that occurs between the big players at present, the AAA market seems viable, if still overly prone to the stagnation and the related franchise/"safe bet" trap. If THQ doesn't pull out of its nose-dive, Sega continues its present course, and EA self-destructs, I don't think we have a stable system any longer.

There will still be games. Independent games, cell phone games, tablet games. But I think it likely there will be another gap of 5+ years, much like after the era of Atari, when no one thinks consoles are fertile ground for cultivation.

And anyone who latches their hopes for market success onto EA's coat tails, "mainstream" or "independent", may have cause to regret it.

Your remark about "control" is interesting, but it's hardly exclusive to EA. Call of Duty Elite is probably the most obvious example of an even more egregious system of control and from the PC perspective, Ubi's always-on DRM is up there too. But EA is the whipping boy because it's cool to hate on EA. Notch does, after all.

They're certainly not the only ones, but they're regrettably big enough that they can make the case that anything they do is "industry standard" because they're doing it with a straight face. I joked once that I try not to make any statements about EA or Activision being the greater evil because the other always seems to take it as a challenge.

But EA didn't get to where they are, antagonism-wise, just because "cool" people say they're evil, or some Internet survey declared them the worst company in the world (which is certainly nonsense, I'll agree.) To a very real extent, they brought this on themselves.

Call me crazy but I find that basing my purchases on what I think of actual games, rather than some silly, arbitrary assessment of whether or not a company is "evil," is a very effective way to ensure that I end up with the games I like, and avoid the ones I don't.

EA has put me in a position where buying any of their games amounts to a tacit agreement with a large number of decisions and positions that I find genuinely reprehensible. I wish I could simply buy one of their games because I appreciate the emphasis on story and character, or because the new user interface sounds like something more games should be doing. But if I do, I'm also saying, "Yes, I agree that I'm no longer "buying" a "game" but merely gratefully giving my money for access to something remote that can be withdrawn at any time without refund. That no matter how woefully you mismanage crucial aspects of that access, I will have no recourse, but humbly accept your decisions. That any attempts to foster a sense of 'community' around a game may be living on borrowed time, as it may be decided that said community is making improper use of IP assets or derivative code and violating terms of use."

...And yes, I'm aware that some of these kinds of terms have been in use for some time, but EA is the one that seems to be saying not "Sorry, guys, y'know, our lawyers made us put that in," but "Oh, look what we can do. Dance!" As stupid as, say, Ubisoft's "constant network check-in" DRM may have been, I at least believed they thought they were doing it to combat piracy. EA has said, "Oh, and while we've brought you in here under the pretext of fighting piracy, also don't sue us, don't talk about cheats, don't break a nebulous set of rules that may be interpreted differently by different forum admins..."

For games I like, well, there are still companies with less-bad ways of treating their customers, and Kickstarter is showing some progress. My decision regarding EA may seem silly or arbitrary to you. I'm aware that it's probably not going to push back the flood. But I assure you, it wasn't some knee-jerk reaction to a statement from Notch.

 

[Lugbzurg]

There is something I have to disagree with Notch on.

Your budget has nothing to do with weather or not you can call yourself "indie". It's the legal professionalism and probably the size, to some extent. Heck, even ID Software was considered "indie".

Just because you're making a grand profit, doesn't mean you aren't indie. Nothing has changed. Weather you have $1 to spend, or $1,000,000, that's only going to count for how far you'll be able to take something. It has nothing to do with what you are.

If a billionaire decided to make his own videogames by himself in his living room, would this make him non-indie? Of course not. Notch is totally indie. No amount of large budgeting can change that. There are entirely different aspects that will judge this, and cash flow isn't one of them.