What do I mean when I say “indie”?

 

While there is a certain esprit de l’indépendance conjured up in my mind when I hear and use the term, for the most part all “indie” means is: self-funded.

 

That’s it. You pony up the money (if you have it) and effort (welcome to “sweat equity”) to make your project, you get to call yourself an indie.

 

An exception I’m willing to grant is for those clever souls who manage to get someone else to fund their project while retaining full control of it. It does happen, and it’s a trick I’d love to learn.

 

 

Note that this definition differs from the game development industry’s definition of “independent game developer”. To the industry, so long as you’re not owned or employed by one of the publishers, you’re “independent”. I think most media industries have a similar definition: if the studio/label/publisher doesn’t own you (yet), you’re “independent”. Even though in most cases those “independents” are quite dependent on them for funding–and even for permission to proceed (e.g., “waiting on the greenlight”).

 

The Indie Games Festival, held each year as a part of the Game Developer Conference, reflects this industry definition, though with a nod to the self-funded aspect. Check the rules. So long as you aren’t a subsidiary of, and don’t receive funding from, one of the “ineligible publishers” listed, you’re an independent.

 

The IGF’s rules in this regard have led to some interesting cases over the years, where rather well-funded games have been included in the IGF. Since the money came from a company not on the ineligible publishers list, the projects were deemed independent. Usually, though, only the struggling indies (or their advocates) complain about this perceived inequity. The industry at large doesn’t really comprehend the difference.

 

 

So, if you make a game on your dime (or the collected dimes of you and your team), you’re an indie. Even if you license your game to a portal or other, more traditional publisher and make a buttload of money–you’re still an indie.

 

However, as soon as you leverage that success to pitch an idea to a publisher and have them fund the development of that idea, and wait for their permission to work on the project, you’ve just left the ranks of indie-dom. If that’s what you want to do, though, more power to you.

 

Another possibility is to just stop working on your own projects, for whatever reason.

 

That’s about it for losing your indie status.

 

However, there’s nothing stopping you from being both an industry insider and an independent (beyond the occasional contract clause prohibiting it). Hollywood has a number of actors and directors who go back and forth from big-budget studio pictures (to pay the bills) and low-budget indie films (to feed the soul).

 

 

So that’s it. Believe in what you’re doing enough that if someone offered you $10 million to “do whatever you wanted” you would still be doing what you’re doing. Just maybe you’d do it with more gold trim.

 

I like to think that being an indie shows a certain strength of character, a willingness to be responsible for your own life in your own way. It’s easy to become a cog in the corporate machinery. Stepping outside the machine then represents the harder, riskier path. Many people avoid all hints of risk. As an indie, though, you’ve decided to face at least some risk.

 

But don’t let that go to your head. Indies are special, sure. But not that special.

 

-Joe