A Moogle  🏳️‍🌈 💻 🎮 🎶 🇸🇪

What *is* an "indie" developer? A thread. To me, the term "indie" is one of those intangible things in gaming that has changed over time. I'm not sure if that's necessarily good or bad. But to me, it has always meant "privately owned", compared to a publisher-owned studio.

I could very well be completely off base, but from what I remember, it arose as a contrast to the increasing number of studios being snapped up by publishers; an unspoken pledge that the development process there would be different, more personally focused.

To that end, I have to wonder if the perception of the term has changed over the years. As publishing resources for independent developers have become more available, this has naturally resulted in an explosion of popular indie titles, and with that: studio expansion.

For example, @ArrowheadGS started out as a close-knit group of about 5 people. In the intervening years, it's grown by leaps and bounds, to upwards of 65 people. Nevertheless, it's still privately-held, and not beholden to any particular owner other than the founders.

I've had people try to argue that Arrowhead is "not indie", because of our head-count; yet I've experienced a dynamic, a way of working, while working here that I've never seen at any of the many publisher-owned studios I used to grind for.

So to that end, I have to wonder: At what point are a person or persons no longer "indie" developers? Is @ConcernedApe somehow not entitled to that moniker due to the wild success of Stardew Valley, and the ensuing expansion of personnel?

It occurs to me that over the past decade or so, there's been a gradual refinement of what people perceive as "indie", to the extent that people might accuse a successful, but small, group of developers as not being indie "enough", as if it's some modern form of "street cred".