WTF Humble Bundle?! "Indie" my ass.

[Hazy992]

What do I hate about EA? Well;

Bringing out 'sequels' year on year that are only incremental updates, then having the cheek to charge £40 for it.
Popularising the online pass system.
Having adverts like 'Your Mom Will Hate Dead Space 2', which just paints a negative picture of the medium, like game developers are trying to piss people off.
The way the treat their employees and smaller developers.

Don't forget Origin! It's spyware, likes to glitch and double your charges, and locks you out for misbehaving on EA or Bioware forums. On top of that we have their promising copies of Battlefield 1942 to PS3 buyers of BF3, and then just not doing it after the BF3 units had been sold. THEN, of course, offering "early access to DLC" as compensation (note it's just early access; they still had to pay for it) when that early access was already an advertised bonus prior to this debacle.

Trying to beat the competition by making the same game as the competition but worse (*cough* Medal of Honor *cough*).

Medal Of Monor was once a proud military FPS series; it predates Call Of Duty by a good bit and was a lot better back in its day. Did you ever play MoH: Allied Assault on the PC? Or Frontline on Gamecube/PS2? Those were great games! But EA mutated it from its former strong, singleplayer-focused roots into an attempt to directly attack CoD, which they already had Battlefield for.

I mean the Medal of Honor from 2010. The reboot.

 

[Hazy992]

Hell, I thought this was going to be interesting. I get that EA isn't indie, but what do you have against it as a company? They make sequels because the previous title sold successfully, that's what companies do. Plus, when indie companies get big, it can happen, you'll probably just go and start talking bad about them too.

What do I hate about EA? Well;

Bringing out 'sequels' year on year that are only incremental updates, then having the cheek to charge £40 for it.
Popularising the online pass system.
Having adverts like 'Your Mom Will Hate Dead Space 2', which just paints a negative picture of the medium, like game developers are trying to piss people off.
The way the treat their employees and smaller developers.
Trying to beat the competition by making the same game as the competition but worse (*cough* Medal of Honor *cough*).

Phew! Rant over!

You forgot backing SOPA. ...or were you done... oh shi...

I forgot they were backing SOPA. That's reason enough to hate them.

 

[MurderousToaster]

Oh, cry some more. You are aware that it was made by an indie company, yes? EA don't own them, they just published the game. They're a small-scale company with only a few employees who turned to a big publisher in order to get their game a proper release. Just because it's not made in a cave on a Windows 95 PC by hipsters doesn't mean it's not indie.

 

[targren]

Double post. Mea Culpa

 

[targren]

Because one game is slightly published by a large publisher the entire humble indie bundle, including the other games are no longer indie.

I actually said the exact opposite of that. I specifically said that's why I didn't go change my developer slider to $0.

Oh, cry some more. You are aware that it was made by an indie company, yes? EA don't own them, they just published the game. They're a small-scale company with only a few employees who turned to a big publisher in order to get their game a proper release. Just because it's not made in a cave on a Windows 95 PC by hipsters doesn't mean it's not indie.

How many times does it have to be pointed out... Once you're signed with a publisher, you are no longer an indie developer. By frigging definition. You are then just a small developer. Size is completely orthogonal to whether one is independent or not.

 

[MurderousToaster]

Because one game is slightly published by a large publisher the entire humble indie bundle, including the other games are no longer indie.

I actually said the exact opposite of that. I specifically said that's why I didn't go change my developer slider to $0.

Oh, cry some more. You are aware that it was made by an indie company, yes? EA don't own them, they just published the game. They're a small-scale company with only a few employees who turned to a big publisher in order to get their game a proper release. Just because it's not made in a cave on a Windows 95 PC by hipsters doesn't mean it's not indie.

How many times does it have to be pointed out... Once you're signed with a publisher, you are no longer an indie developer. By frigging definition. You are then just a small developer. Size is completely orthogonal to whether one is independent or not.

Here's the issue - they're still independent. This individual game was published by EA. The developer themselves do not have a contract with EA, nor are they owned by EA. Therefore, while that specific game may not be independent, the developer is. Perhaps you should consider actually bothering to do some research before you come over all exasperated?

 

[esperandote]

So people hate EA for mostly for they dull sequels and now also because of supporting new projects?

Second time I actually need to post something.

http://twitter.com/#!/klei/

Spoiler

Hopefully this will clear things up

It does clear things up.

They used EA for marketing and distro. They're still as independant as if they'd hired Walter Thompson to advertise and UPS to distro. They only difference is that EA allows them to pay as a cut of the profits rather than all up front. They are indie in every sense that matters: creative control, programming, funding, future projects, etc.

This too.

 

[Montezuma's Lawyer]

''Shank is a 2D side-scrolling beat 'em up developed by Klei Entertainment and published by Electronic Arts.''

Indie developer EA as publisher, no problem there right?

EA's name attached = auto-bad.

It's like if you hate Quinton Tarantino you shouldn't watch the film "Hero" because his name is on the poster.

But they had nothing to do with the content of the game apart from it's distribution?

'Shank was announced at Penny Arcade Expo 2009. On March 4, 2010 Klei Entertainment signed with Electronic Arts and were able to finalize which platforms the game would be released on.'

So they worked on it for a year before EA was even involved.

These people will do anything to hate EA, your logic fails to impress them.

 

[veloper]

''Shank is a 2D side-scrolling beat 'em up developed by Klei Entertainment and published by Electronic Arts.''

Indie developer, with EA as publisher, no problem there right?

Here is their website http://kleientertainment.com/ They are definitely indie I'd say.

Indies don't have publishers by definition. They self-publish. Indies don't go to a publisher to borrow money for their project.

I love this sort of argument. On one side, you've got people saying that the best way to get innovation into the industry is to increase the distribution scale of indie games using the money of larger publishers, allowing more people access to the new ideas from smaller developers. On the other side, you've got people saying big companies shouldn't get involved with indie games because they're bad.

It's about on the same level of logical response as "Cos I said so."

I know, some people baffle me. In the case of Shank, the developer made two successful self published indie games in the past, and thus gained the industry credentials to to sign on with a major publisher. This should be a good thing! A small developer getting recognized and rewarded for producing quality content. I don't get these people that assume everyone at the developer immediately loses their soul the second they sign a publishing deal. How dare they try to make money, real indie developers are broke and homeless.

I never said it was morally wrong. It's just not indie.

Indie is for independent. Not being fully owned by a publisher doesn't make an independent developer yet.
Indies simply don't depend on publishers for anything. That's what makes them "independent". The meaning of the word says it all basicly.
Indies self-publish.

The OP is technically correct.

 

[veloper]

''Shank is a 2D side-scrolling beat 'em up developed by Klei Entertainment and published by Electronic Arts.''

Indie developer, with EA as publisher, no problem there right?

Here is their website http://kleientertainment.com/ They are definitely indie I'd say.

Indies don't have publishers by definition. They self-publish. Indies don't go to a publisher to borrow money for their project.

Maybe there needs to be a new definition of indie then.. Because they are hardly Bioware.

Plenty of useful definitions around already.

Bioware are a large game studio: they're big and a part of a publisher.
Bioware used to be a big developer: big and working with a publisher (atari back then).
Mojang are indie: they self-publish.

Errm I kind of meant that the current definition puts Klei on the same level as Bioware which seems kind of skewed since they are clearly a relatively tiny company yet they have a large publisher.

How about simply calling Klei a "small developer" then. Problem solved.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

DId anybody bother to mention that EA is not a "developer" they are a publisher?

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

''Shank is a 2D side-scrolling beat 'em up developed by Klei Entertainment and published by Electronic Arts.''

Indie developer, with EA as publisher, no problem there right?

Here is their website http://kleientertainment.com/ They are definitely indie I'd say.

Indies don't have publishers by definition. They self-publish. Indies don't go to a publisher to borrow money for their project.

Maybe there needs to be a new definition of indie then.. Because they are hardly Bioware.

Plenty of useful definitions around already.

Bioware are a large game studio: they're big and a part of a publisher.
Bioware used to be a big developer: big and working with a publisher (atari back then).
Mojang are indie: they self-publish.

Errm I kind of meant that the current definition puts Klei on the same level as Bioware which seems kind of skewed since they are clearly a relatively tiny company yet they have a large publisher.

How about simply calling Klei a "small developer" then. Problem solved.

Surely a small developer is deserving of inclusion in the bundle then. Since it's not exactly like they are rolling in cash.

 

[Rad Party God]

It's Klei Entertainment, an indie developer who also made the awesome Eets.

I understand your "concern" about seeing EA's logo... they simply act as a publisher, also... who cares if it has EA's logo?.

 

[hooksashands]

It's okay. The men in suits don't control everything. Remain calm and enjoy your game, which was worked on by small developer. Remember: Deep breaths.

 

[theultimateend]

Nope, not a troll. I just understand how a successful business works.

By not emphasizing that this is just one of many ways to be a successful business you haven't really established any solid understanding of business or solid business practices.

It was more of an observational comment. "They make money so obviously that is how you make money." Which really doesn't say anything.

EA does one of many things that can work. Is it the most effective? Probably not. If it was they wouldn't need to spend millions of dollars on marketing. Similarly Activision wouldn't be spending record levels of marketing just to overcome their business practices.

There are far more efficient systems for turning a profit. The reason they aren't used is because they require actual thought. The idea of brute forcing a no-return product with massive amounts of marketing is the current mainstream tactic but it isn't efficient. If it was they wouldn't need to continually strip down what they are doing in hopes of covering the cost.

Companies like EA and Activision have a few major titles that subsidize all their other failures. These companies only remain strong for as long as they pound out the same working product. It's a very flimsy model and will likely lead to another collapse. These companies at one time were the small nobodies who replaced a previous group that collapsed.

History repeats itself, blah, blah, blah.

I suspect a few indies (like Mojang) will end up getting big, start doing the same thing, and then collapse.

 

[veloper]

''Shank is a 2D side-scrolling beat 'em up developed by Klei Entertainment and published by Electronic Arts.''

Indie developer, with EA as publisher, no problem there right?

Here is their website http://kleientertainment.com/ They are definitely indie I'd say.

Indies don't have publishers by definition. They self-publish. Indies don't go to a publisher to borrow money for their project.

Maybe there needs to be a new definition of indie then.. Because they are hardly Bioware.

Plenty of useful definitions around already.

Bioware are a large game studio: they're big and a part of a publisher.
Bioware used to be a big developer: big and working with a publisher (atari back then).
Mojang are indie: they self-publish.

Errm I kind of meant that the current definition puts Klei on the same level as Bioware which seems kind of skewed since they are clearly a relatively tiny company yet they have a large publisher.

How about simply calling Klei a "small developer" then. Problem solved.

Surely a small developer is deserving of inclusion in the bundle then. Since it's not exactly like they are rolling in cash.

We'll call it the humble small developer bundle then.

Indie =/= poor. Mojang are indie and they are raking in the money. Going indie on the PC can be very smart.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

You know what would be great? If EA would keep helping developers like this. Allowing them to get their work done while maintaining creative control. That would be great. Good games and new ideas would flourish. I have absolutely no problem with that. I may not like many of EA's business practices, but this is unquestionably a good one.

Probably the most sensible post on this thread so far. I completely agree.
On a separate note, seeing your avatar directly before reading your post made me think a blood-coated vino crawled down from the ceiling right next to me with crazy eyes reading your post on my computer. That would be flippin' scary XD. And it's still dark in my room so..yeah. And yes, that last part was completely random.

Just warning you, but there is a guy on here with a blood drenched vino as their avatar, which would obviously be more frightening than mine. I continue to envy that avatar.

And thank you for the compliment.

 

[Yeager942]

I fail to see the big deal with this...

 

[Micalas]

It is just a video game. I don't see the big deal.

You forgot to take off you hipster glasses before you said that last part

I didn't even know I had any hipster glasses...

Actually, I wasn't even attempting to be a hipster at all. I don't even have one of those pretentious scarfs, and my sunglasses are the cheap ones from Wal-Mart.[/quote]

Glasses you bought as part of an ironic statement about rabid consumerism in western civilization.

 

[veloper]

I never said it was morally wrong. It's just not indie.

Indie is for independent. Not being fully owned by a publisher doesn't make an independent developer yet.
Indies simply don't depend on publishers for anything. That's what makes them "independent". The meaning of the word says it all basicly.
Indies self-publish.

The OP is technically correct.

No, the OP is wrong and so are you. You are making up your own definition of indie that doesn't make any sense if you think about it for more than a few seconds.

Indie simply means that it's a game where the creators are not beholden to a larger company for their decisions. They take the risk, they get the profits, and are free to divvy those however they like.

That is ENTIRELY Klei. Saying they can't make a deal with EA for marketing and distro while being indie is like saying they can't make a deal with UPS for shipping while being indie. It's preposterous. Now, if EA got to dictate what platforms they'd publish for, they'd no longer be indie. EA didn't. EA saying "We can get you on to these platforms if you can do it" is no different from say UPS saying "We can supply boxes for your shipping if you're ready"

Seriously, you're arguing that a developer somehow isn't indie if they make their own decisions on who they want to publish for them -- yet making your own decisions about that kind of thing is really what kind of defines being independent. It's not DIY or Punk software, fer chrissakes, it's just independent.

Marketing through a publisher is definitely out of the question for an indie. Distribution isn't the same as publishing, but distribution is more like Steam.
Your definition is so wide, it's meaningless. You might aswell call any developer that is not an inhouse game studio, indie.