Because KS does not provide me with any games. It provides only HOPES of games.
I've donated to 4 KS games.
I have access to 4 playable games.
Which 4? I wasn't aware that any KS games had actually been released...genuinely curious.
Castle Story: playable prototype (weakest example, as it's really not quite enough to be fun yet)
Defense Grid 2: Kickstarter reached the tier where they could release DG1:Containment, which has been out a while now. (So-so example as DG2 itself hasn't technically been released even though a completely new DG1 expansion is now playable.)
SolForge: playable game but still has a ways to go (best example, as it's fun enough that I keep coming back to play it.)
[I noobed up and there is no 4th game, since I confused it with the music kickstarter I backed and received everything for.]
So basically you can twist it positive and say I donated to 3 games and have 3 new things to play (most of which are fun), OR you can twist it negatively and say I don't have Absolutely Completely Final versions of any of these games. It's sorta reliant on what your agenda is.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Wow this is amazing...so now you are not indie if you get another one of your indie friends to help out...so basically now everyone HAS to stand alone or be thrown in the same pile as big brother corporation.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Wow this is amazing...so now you are not indie if you get another one of your indie friends to help out...so basically now everyone HAS to stand alone or be thrown in the same pile as big brother corporation.
Here let me pull that wool away from your eyes…
RG and CR are as indie to gaming as INDEPENDENT contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin are to DOD.
Wow this is amazing...so now you are not indie if you get another one of your indie friends to help out...so basically now everyone HAS to stand alone or be thrown in the same pile as big brother corporation.
Here let me pull that wool away from your eyes…
RG and CR are as indie to gaming as INDEPENDENT contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin are to DOD.
They are working Independently (No big name publisher). This makes them Indie. In fact it's the very definition of Indie. Just because you are famous in the games industry doesn't mean you can't be an Indie developer as well. When they thumbed their collective noses at the big name publishers and profit centric corporate oversight and desided to develop games on their own they became "Indie". Being "Indie" has nothing to do with how much fame you have it has to do with how your game is being developed. They have both struck out on their own, totally independent of publishers.
Very nice attempted strawman though... Too bad it really makes no sense in the context of game development.
Wow this is amazing...so now you are not indie if you get another one of your indie friends to help out...so basically now everyone HAS to stand alone or be thrown in the same pile as big brother corporation.
Here let me pull that wool away from your eyes…
RG and CR are as indie to gaming as INDEPENDENT contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin are to DOD.
They are working Independently (No big name publisher). This makes them Indie. In fact it's the very definition of Indie. Just because you are famous in the games industry doesn't mean you can't be an Indie developer as well. When they thumbed their collective noses at the big name publishers and profit centric corporate oversight and desided to develop games on their own they became "Indie". Being "Indie" has nothing to do with how much fame you have it has to do with how your game is being developed. They have both struck out on their own, totally independent of publishers.
Very nice attempted strawman though... Too bad it really makes no sense in the context of game development.
Bren
They've both worked for big names (once) they're both big names, they both see themselves as untouchable in the game space market, calling them indie is just throwing REAL independent developers under the bus. Nice try, collect you check you've at least tried.
Wow this is amazing...so now you are not indie if you get another one of your indie friends to help out...so basically now everyone HAS to stand alone or be thrown in the same pile as big brother corporation.
Here let me pull that wool away from your eyes…
RG and CR are as indie to gaming as INDEPENDENT contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin are to DOD.
They are working Independently (No big name publisher). This makes them Indie. In fact it's the very definition of Indie. Just because you are famous in the games industry doesn't mean you can't be an Indie developer as well. When they thumbed their collective noses at the big name publishers and profit centric corporate oversight and desided to develop games on their own they became "Indie". Being "Indie" has nothing to do with how much fame you have it has to do with how your game is being developed. They have both struck out on their own, totally independent of publishers.
Very nice attempted strawman though... Too bad it really makes no sense in the context of game development.
Bren
They've both worked for big names (once) they're both big names, they both see themselves as untouchable in the game space market, calling them indie is just throwing REAL independent developers under the bus. Nice try, collect you check you've at least tried.
Indie = Independent Developer
Roberts = Independent Developer
Garriott = Independent Developer
So... Wait for it...
Roberts and Garriott = Indie
I hope this explaination is a little simpler than the last one... I think it confused you with all of those sentence thingies in the way. Cheers Bro!
I hope this explaination is a little simpler than the last one... I think it confused you with all of those sentence thingies in the way. Cheers Bro!
Bren
It's hard to combat ignorance... but I'll give it a go...
CR & RG = Millionaire Philanthropists
CR began Origin Systems, Digital Anvil (with EA… I know shocking), Point of No Return Entertainment, Ascendant Pictures, and Cloud Imperium Corporation.
CR curriculum vita includes game development, film production, and film director… oh and programmer.
RG began Origin Systems (sold to EA… again shocking), became CEO of NCsoft, and began Portalarium.
RG curriculum vita includes game development, entrepreneur, (very) expensive tourist… oh and programmer.
Indie… sorry NO. I know it's hard to imagine, but with resources like these two have, it's actually sad that they cannot secure funding and create their 'vision' without your money.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the facts DO speak for themselves.
Nice to see people continuing to wail on Kickstarter for the most idiotic of reasons... sure some projects will innevitably fail but I hate to have to point out the fact that we're already getting decent to good games even though kickstarter only really took off in the last year or so. I expect great games to be funded by the Kickstarter system, games which may have taken several more years to have seen the light of day, if at all, than would've been possible with the traditional system.
To all of Kickstarter's detractors: Informed people will make informed decisions on what games to invest in and in which not to, the company running Kickstarter also seems decent at weeding out the bad apples so yeah.
I just get a kick out of people throwing money for hopes and wishful thinking.
In that regard, Kickstarter is awesome for me to hear about. Fools and their money, willing to part.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
The reason Kickstarter is so popular is not because projects get money, most of those designers could just get a loan at a bank, or a loan from a publisher.
The reason kickstarter is popular is because it grants you impunity after you receive the cash.
-you are not required to actually pay back the money like with a bank loan, you actually get a bunch of cash without having to pay back a dime
-unlike with a bank, you do not need to show any credentials, a hobo can get cash on kickstarter as long as the project is hyped enough
-unlike with a bank, you are not required to pay any interest on the investment, your company could go bankrupt a week later and you wouldn't be in trouble with kickstarter
-unlike with a bank, you are free from legal repercussions, if you failed a project with a bank loan, the bank would come get your car and house and you'd spend the rest of your life working to pay back the loan, kickstarter has no consequences, you are free to totally f*** up whatever you're doing once you get the cash
Kistarter allows mediocrity to thrive, which meakes me incredibly apprehensive towards games funded with kicstarter.
Thank god we have the traditional publisher system as well, which has recently produced such non-mediocre MMOs as and, and of course let's not forget
I hope this explaination is a little simpler than the last one... I think it confused you with all of those sentence thingies in the way. Cheers Bro!
Bren
It's hard to combat ignorance... but I'll give it a go...
CR & RG = Millionaire Philanthropists
CR began Origin Systems, Digital Anvil (with EA… I know shocking), Point of No Return Entertainment, Ascendant Pictures, and Cloud Imperium Corporation.
CR curriculum vita includes game development, film production, and film director… oh and programmer.
RG began Origin Systems (sold to EA… again shocking), became CEO of NCsoft, and began Portalarium.
RG curriculum vita includes game development, entrepreneur, (very) expensive tourist… oh and programmer.
Indie… sorry NO. I know it's hard to imagine, but with resources like these two have, it's actually sad that they cannot secure funding and create their 'vision' without your money.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the facts DO speak for themselves.
Look... I thought I broke it down to the most simplest level for you in my last post but I guess it wasn't enough to get through. "Indie" is nothing more than a short way of saying "Independent Developer". That's it. There are no terms or conditions that define it... It simply means "Independent Developer"... any "Independent Developer". You are trying to redefine it to fit into your own perfect little world and it simply doesn't work that way. There is no fame level associated with it or previous work history. Look I know things must be grand in your special little world but you have to understand that the rest of us don't live there. We live in a place called the real world where the term "Indie" is simply the shortened form of the term "Independent Developer". Something that at this point in their careers both Roberts and Garriott are.
Sorry to burst your bubble but in the real world words and terms have a set meanings and we can't redefine them whenever it suits our fancy. In this world the term "Indie" simply means "Independent Developer" and the rest of us don't really give a rats ass what it means in your own precious little world where you get to redefine things willy nilly. Thank you and have a nice day.
It's hard to combat ignorance... but I'll give it a go...
CR & RG = Millionaire Philanthropists
CR began Origin Systems, Digital Anvil (with EA… I know shocking), Point of No Return Entertainment, Ascendant Pictures, and Cloud Imperium Corporation.
CR curriculum vita includes game development, film production, and film director… oh and programmer.
RG began Origin Systems (sold to EA… again shocking), became CEO of NCsoft, and began Portalarium.
RG curriculum vita includes game development, entrepreneur, (very) expensive tourist… oh and programmer.
Indie… sorry NO. I know it's hard to imagine, but with resources like these two have, it's actually sad that they cannot secure funding and create their 'vision' without your money.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the facts DO speak for themselves.
Look... I thought I broke it down to the most simplest level for you in my last post but I guess it wasn't enough to get through. "Indie" is nothing more than a short way of saying "Independent Developer". That's it. There are no terms or conditions that define it... It simply means "Independent Developer"... any "Independent Developer". You are trying to redefine it to fit into your own perfect little world and it simply doesn't work that way. There is no fame level associated with it or previous work history. Look I know things must be grand in your special little world but you have to understand that the rest of us don't live there. We live in a place called the real world where the term "Indie" is simply the shortened form of the term "Independent Developer". Something that at this point in their careers both Roberts and Garriott are.
Sorry to burst your bubble but in the real world words and terms have a set meanings and we can't redefine them whenever it suits our fancy. In this world the term "Indie" simply means "Independent Developer" and the rest of us don't really give a rats ass what it means in your own precious little world where you get to redefine things willy nilly. Thank you and have a nice day.
Bren
Here, I’m hoping that this simplification will help, I’m reducing it to something that I think even the simplest of minds can understand. I believe that this was used before to try and help a certain constituency… they had trouble grasping concepts too. For even greater simplicity, I’ll be as monosyllabic as possible:
Lip-Stick on a Pig, it is still a Pig.
You seem to want to ‘stick’ to the ideal definition. It doesn’t matter. You can label all you want, it doesn’t make the reality of the situation that much more realistic. Eyes open? Don't settle for labels, challenge them... or continue to be a sheep.
If they are not being funded by another company they are indie. It doesn't matter how much money they have, how famous they are or what they have done in the past.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
It's hard to combat ignorance... but I'll give it a go...
CR & RG = Millionaire Philanthropists
CR began Origin Systems, Digital Anvil (with EA… I know shocking), Point of No Return Entertainment, Ascendant Pictures, and Cloud Imperium Corporation.
CR curriculum vita includes game development, film production, and film director… oh and programmer.
RG began Origin Systems (sold to EA… again shocking), became CEO of NCsoft, and began Portalarium.
RG curriculum vita includes game development, entrepreneur, (very) expensive tourist… oh and programmer.
Indie… sorry NO. I know it's hard to imagine, but with resources like these two have, it's actually sad that they cannot secure funding and create their 'vision' without your money.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the facts DO speak for themselves.
Look... I thought I broke it down to the most simplest level for you in my last post but I guess it wasn't enough to get through. "Indie" is nothing more than a short way of saying "Independent Developer". That's it. There are no terms or conditions that define it... It simply means "Independent Developer"... any "Independent Developer". You are trying to redefine it to fit into your own perfect little world and it simply doesn't work that way. There is no fame level associated with it or previous work history. Look I know things must be grand in your special little world but you have to understand that the rest of us don't live there. We live in a place called the real world where the term "Indie" is simply the shortened form of the term "Independent Developer". Something that at this point in their careers both Roberts and Garriott are.
Sorry to burst your bubble but in the real world words and terms have a set meanings and we can't redefine them whenever it suits our fancy. In this world the term "Indie" simply means "Independent Developer" and the rest of us don't really give a rats ass what it means in your own precious little world where you get to redefine things willy nilly. Thank you and have a nice day.
Bren
Here, I’m hoping that this simplification will help, I’m reducing it to something that I think even the simplest of minds can understand. I believe that this was used before to try and help a certain constituency… they had trouble grasping concepts too. For even greater simplicity, I’ll be as monosyllabic as possible:
Lip-Stick on a Pig, it is still a Pig.
You seem to want to ‘stick’ to the ideal definition. It doesn’t matter. You can label all you want, it doesn’t make the reality of the situation that much more realistic. Eyes open? Don't settle for labels, challenge them... or continue to be a sheep.
There is no sticking to an "Ideal" definition as there is only one definition. Any other definition you may have is a fantasy you yourself created.
It's hard to combat ignorance... but I'll give it a go...
CR & RG = Millionaire Philanthropists
CR began Origin Systems, Digital Anvil (with EA… I know shocking), Point of No Return Entertainment, Ascendant Pictures, and Cloud Imperium Corporation.
CR curriculum vita includes game development, film production, and film director… oh and programmer.
RG began Origin Systems (sold to EA… again shocking), became CEO of NCsoft, and began Portalarium.
RG curriculum vita includes game development, entrepreneur, (very) expensive tourist… oh and programmer.
Indie… sorry NO. I know it's hard to imagine, but with resources like these two have, it's actually sad that they cannot secure funding and create their 'vision' without your money.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the facts DO speak for themselves.
Look... I thought I broke it down to the most simplest level for you in my last post but I guess it wasn't enough to get through. "Indie" is nothing more than a short way of saying "Independent Developer". That's it. There are no terms or conditions that define it... It simply means "Independent Developer"... any "Independent Developer". You are trying to redefine it to fit into your own perfect little world and it simply doesn't work that way. There is no fame level associated with it or previous work history. Look I know things must be grand in your special little world but you have to understand that the rest of us don't live there. We live in a place called the real world where the term "Indie" is simply the shortened form of the term "Independent Developer". Something that at this point in their careers both Roberts and Garriott are.
Sorry to burst your bubble but in the real world words and terms have a set meanings and we can't redefine them whenever it suits our fancy. In this world the term "Indie" simply means "Independent Developer" and the rest of us don't really give a rats ass what it means in your own precious little world where you get to redefine things willy nilly. Thank you and have a nice day.
Bren
Here, I’m hoping that this simplification will help, I’m reducing it to something that I think even the simplest of minds can understand. I believe that this was used before to try and help a certain constituency… they had trouble grasping concepts too. For even greater simplicity, I’ll be as monosyllabic as possible:
Lip-Stick on a Pig, it is still a Pig.
You seem to want to ‘stick’ to the ideal definition. It doesn’t matter. You can label all you want, it doesn’t make the reality of the situation that much more realistic. Eyes open? Don't settle for labels, challenge them... or continue to be a sheep.
There is no sticking to an "Ideal" definition as there is only one definition. Any other definition you may have is a fantasy you yourself created.
If they are not being funded by another company they are indie. It doesn't matter how much money they have, how famous they are or what they have done in the past.
So when a former president speaks on behalf of a candidate, they're an independent consultant, with no previous directive that could be construed as a position, right?
If they are not being funded by another company they are indie. It doesn't matter how much money they have, how famous they are or what they have done in the past.
So when a former president speaks on behalf of a candidate, they're an independent consultant, with no previous directive that could be construed as a position, right?
Again... This is another nice Strawman Argument that makes absolutely no sense when you try to apply it to game development... Get a clue please.
If they are not being funded by another company they are indie. It doesn't matter how much money they have, how famous they are or what they have done in the past.
So when a former president speaks on behalf of a candidate, they're an independent consultant, with no previous directive that could be construed as a position, right?
The former president would not necessarily be an independent, wrong thinking their. The person running could be an independent.
If the candidate is not being backed by a political party, than yes that is independent. Thats what it means, no other company backing you.
In fact we have that in politics all the time, a person not affiliated with a party running for office, and what do we call them? Independents.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
If they are not being funded by another company they are indie. It doesn't matter how much money they have, how famous they are or what they have done in the past.
So when a former president speaks on behalf of a candidate, they're an independent consultant, with no previous directive that could be construed as a position, right?
Again... This is another nice Strawman Argument that makes absolutely no sense when you try to apply it to game development... Get a clue please.
Bren
sigh… ok… so here it is…
There are those that think conceptually and those that quote the dictionary. This particular post (obviously) tasked the community to think about WHO they are considering ‘indie’ and those that are truly ‘independent’. This is presented, regardless of self-proclamation by either RG or CR. My reasons for this are clearly stated in the 1st post: I consider RG tired and past his prime, and am disappointed at the cross-pollination that seems to have occurred between him and CR. Put in simpler terms: I wish RG to keep his slimy hands off of Star Citizen. Further, I question why these two historical figures in gaming should need to seek crowd funding for their perspective projects, given their financial means.
Now, I completely understand that it’s extremely difficult for some to consider conceptual perspectives and argue for or against. In the same right, I understand those that will forever quote the dictionaryor other written doctrine. There still exist those that accept theological writings as verbatim, for example.
It’s sad that a community that is supposed to be broad in imagination and perspective will still hide behind the dictionary, using it as a crutch due to lack of inquisitivenessand intellectual breadth. It’s sad, although predictable.
So, I now submit that there is just zero chance or expectation for a neither creative, nor conceptual exchange on this topic.
On a lighter note, I submit a word with multiple definitions that Firefly fans may enjoy:
Interesting – adj. 1. Capable of holding one’s attention. 2. Arousing a feeling of interest. 3. Oh God, Oh God, we’re all going to die.
You have now been provided with a definition, and an ‘ideal’ definition. More than that, this particular word comes to mind when I consider the breath of flexibility in recent posts; they are neither interesting, nor pointed.
Enjoy the saddle you wear, and the rider (i.e. your independent developers) that rides you.
Oh, and by all means, please post a philosophical perspective or inflammatory thought; it’s predictable and expected.
Kistarter allows mediocrity to thrive, which meakes me incredibly apprehensive towards games funded with kicstarter.
Publishers going through Kickstarter are less like to sell out to the WoW crowd. Before kickstarter a lot of developers come in with big ideas and get loans to make their muli-million dollar MMO. The problem is the developers start to worry more about the loans than making their game. The first thing they do is to sell out to attract the big bucks from the WoW kiddies. Pretty much in 8 years we have seen 8 years of sell out WoW cloners. That 100% failure rate on the old way of doing things.
Kickstarted funded games may be mediocre money makers but they will NOT be your average WoW clone.
If they are not being funded by another company they are indie. It doesn't matter how much money they have, how famous they are or what they have done in the past.
So when a former president speaks on behalf of a candidate, they're an independent consultant, with no previous directive that could be construed as a position, right?
Again... This is another nice Strawman Argument that makes absolutely no sense when you try to apply it to game development... Get a clue please.
Bren
sigh… ok… so here it is…
There are those that think conceptually and those that quote the dictionary. This particular post (obviously) tasked the community to think about WHO they are considering ‘indie’ and those that are truly ‘independent’. This is presented, regardless of self-proclamation by either RG or CR. My reasons for this are clearly stated in the 1st post: I consider RG tired and past his prime, and am disappointed at the cross-pollination that seems to have occurred between him and CR. Put in simpler terms: I wish RG to keep his slimy hands off of Star Citizen. Further, I question why these two historical figures in gaming should need to seek crowd funding for their perspective projects, given their financial means.
Now, I completely understand that it’s extremely difficult for some to consider conceptual perspectives and argue for or against. In the same right, I understand those that will forever quote the dictionaryor other written doctrine. There still exist those that accept theological writings as verbatim, for example.
It’s sad that a community that is supposed to be broad in imagination and perspective will still hide behind the dictionary, using it as a crutch due to lack of inquisitivenessand intellectual breadth. It’s sad, although predictable.
So, I now submit that there is just zero chance or expectation for a neither creative, nor conceptual exchange on this topic.
On a lighter note, I submit a word with multiple definitions that Firefly fans may enjoy:
Interesting – adj. 1. Capable of holding one’s attention. 2. Arousing a feeling of interest. 3. Oh God, Oh God, we’re all going to die.
You have now been provided with a definition, and an ‘ideal’ definition. More than that, this particular word comes to mind when I consider the breath of flexibility in recent posts; they are neither interesting, nor pointed.
Enjoy the saddle you wear, and the rider (i.e. your independent developers) that rides you.
Oh, and by all means, please post a philosophical perspective or inflammatory thought; it’s predictable and expected.
Again... I'm not interested in your made up definitions. This is a term that has a very straight forward definition. "Independent Developer" or "Indie" for short has only one definition... A developer working without the financial aide or oversight of a Publisher. This term does not have any other conditions attached. What you've posted above and for that matter all you've posted since this argument started are Strawman arguments to try to defend your point of view on the matter. If a Strawman argument is the very best you can come up with than this argument is pretty much over as you pretty obviously can't defend the indefensible because it's just wrong... period.
I mean really... this whole thread is a paranoid delusion started by you. You really can't try to take the intellectual high road when from the very thread title it's pretty obvious you aren't one. You may want to read the rest of this thread because as others have pointed out it's pretty obvious you don't even know what "Jumping the Shark" actually means either. But I'm sure you'd probably turn that into a totally pointless argument as well because i'm also sure that that term has some special little meaning only you know from the precious little world you live in. I'm through here as I'm sure it's pretty obvious to anyone reading this thread other than you who's right and who's wrong.
Comments
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Wow this is amazing...so now you are not indie if you get another one of your indie friends to help out...so basically now everyone HAS to stand alone or be thrown in the same pile as big brother corporation.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Here let me pull that wool away from your eyes…
RG and CR are as indie to gaming as INDEPENDENT contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin are to DOD.
I have access of the same 4 games without donating a dime. Don't tell me i can't buy them now.
And when the game is released, it is no longer a KS.
There was a ship from Wing Commander and one of those Catlike Aliens in one of the Ultima games some 20 years ago... move along nothing to see here.
Garriot and Chris have know each other for a long time, and I think we can allow them to do some crossover between their projects?
They are working Independently (No big name publisher). This makes them Indie. In fact it's the very definition of Indie. Just because you are famous in the games industry doesn't mean you can't be an Indie developer as well. When they thumbed their collective noses at the big name publishers and profit centric corporate oversight and desided to develop games on their own they became "Indie". Being "Indie" has nothing to do with how much fame you have it has to do with how your game is being developed. They have both struck out on their own, totally independent of publishers.
Very nice attempted strawman though... Too bad it really makes no sense in the context of game development.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
They've both worked for big names (once) they're both big names, they both see themselves as untouchable in the game space market, calling them indie is just throwing REAL independent developers under the bus. Nice try, collect you check you've at least tried.
Indie = Independent Developer
Roberts = Independent Developer
Garriott = Independent Developer
So... Wait for it...
Roberts and Garriott = Indie
I hope this explaination is a little simpler than the last one... I think it confused you with all of those sentence thingies in the way. Cheers Bro!
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
It's hard to combat ignorance... but I'll give it a go...
CR & RG = Millionaire Philanthropists
CR began Origin Systems, Digital Anvil (with EA… I know shocking), Point of No Return Entertainment, Ascendant Pictures, and Cloud Imperium Corporation.
CR curriculum vita includes game development, film production, and film director… oh and programmer.
RG began Origin Systems (sold to EA… again shocking), became CEO of NCsoft, and began Portalarium.
RG curriculum vita includes game development, entrepreneur, (very) expensive tourist… oh and programmer.
Indie… sorry NO. I know it's hard to imagine, but with resources like these two have, it's actually sad that they cannot secure funding and create their 'vision' without your money.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the facts DO speak for themselves.
I just get a kick out of people throwing money for hopes and wishful thinking.
In that regard, Kickstarter is awesome for me to hear about. Fools and their money, willing to part.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Thank god we have the traditional publisher system as well, which has recently produced such non-mediocre MMOs as and, and of course let's not forget
Give me liberty or give me lasers
Look... I thought I broke it down to the most simplest level for you in my last post but I guess it wasn't enough to get through. "Indie" is nothing more than a short way of saying "Independent Developer". That's it. There are no terms or conditions that define it... It simply means "Independent Developer"... any "Independent Developer". You are trying to redefine it to fit into your own perfect little world and it simply doesn't work that way. There is no fame level associated with it or previous work history. Look I know things must be grand in your special little world but you have to understand that the rest of us don't live there. We live in a place called the real world where the term "Indie" is simply the shortened form of the term "Independent Developer". Something that at this point in their careers both Roberts and Garriott are.
Sorry to burst your bubble but in the real world words and terms have a set meanings and we can't redefine them whenever it suits our fancy. In this world the term "Indie" simply means "Independent Developer" and the rest of us don't really give a rats ass what it means in your own precious little world where you get to redefine things willy nilly. Thank you and have a nice day.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
May be i should start a KS campaign and get some of that money.
Here, I’m hoping that this simplification will help, I’m reducing it to something that I think even the simplest of minds can understand. I believe that this was used before to try and help a certain constituency… they had trouble grasping concepts too. For even greater simplicity, I’ll be as monosyllabic as possible:
Lip-Stick on a Pig, it is still a Pig.
You seem to want to ‘stick’ to the ideal definition. It doesn’t matter. You can label all you want, it doesn’t make the reality of the situation that much more realistic. Eyes open? Don't settle for labels, challenge them... or continue to be a sheep.
If they are not being funded by another company they are indie. It doesn't matter how much money they have, how famous they are or what they have done in the past.
There is no sticking to an "Ideal" definition as there is only one definition. Any other definition you may have is a fantasy you yourself created.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
There is NEVER only one definition.
So when a former president speaks on behalf of a candidate, they're an independent consultant, with no previous directive that could be construed as a position, right?
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
Again... This is another nice Strawman Argument that makes absolutely no sense when you try to apply it to game development... Get a clue please.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
The former president would not necessarily be an independent, wrong thinking their. The person running could be an independent.
If the candidate is not being backed by a political party, than yes that is independent. Thats what it means, no other company backing you.
In fact we have that in politics all the time, a person not affiliated with a party running for office, and what do we call them? Independents.
sigh… ok… so here it is…
There are those that think conceptually and those that quote the dictionary. This particular post (obviously) tasked the community to think about WHO they are considering ‘indie’ and those that are truly ‘independent’. This is presented, regardless of self-proclamation by either RG or CR. My reasons for this are clearly stated in the 1st post: I consider RG tired and past his prime, and am disappointed at the cross-pollination that seems to have occurred between him and CR. Put in simpler terms: I wish RG to keep his slimy hands off of Star Citizen. Further, I question why these two historical figures in gaming should need to seek crowd funding for their perspective projects, given their financial means.
Now, I completely understand that it’s extremely difficult for some to consider conceptual perspectives and argue for or against. In the same right, I understand those that will forever quote the dictionaryor other written doctrine. There still exist those that accept theological writings as verbatim, for example.
It’s sad that a community that is supposed to be broad in imagination and perspective will still hide behind the dictionary, using it as a crutch due to lack of inquisitivenessand intellectual breadth. It’s sad, although predictable.
So, I now submit that there is just zero chance or expectation for a neither creative, nor conceptual exchange on this topic.
On a lighter note, I submit a word with multiple definitions that Firefly fans may enjoy:
Interesting – adj. 1. Capable of holding one’s attention. 2. Arousing a feeling of interest. 3. Oh God, Oh God, we’re all going to die.
You have now been provided with a definition, and an ‘ideal’ definition. More than that, this particular word comes to mind when I consider the breath of flexibility in recent posts; they are neither interesting, nor pointed.
Enjoy the saddle you wear, and the rider (i.e. your independent developers) that rides you.
Oh, and by all means, please post a philosophical perspective or inflammatory thought; it’s predictable and expected.
Publishers going through Kickstarter are less like to sell out to the WoW crowd. Before kickstarter a lot of developers come in with big ideas and get loans to make their muli-million dollar MMO. The problem is the developers start to worry more about the loans than making their game. The first thing they do is to sell out to attract the big bucks from the WoW kiddies. Pretty much in 8 years we have seen 8 years of sell out WoW cloners. That 100% failure rate on the old way of doing things.
Kickstarted funded games may be mediocre money makers but they will NOT be your average WoW clone.
Again... I'm not interested in your made up definitions. This is a term that has a very straight forward definition. "Independent Developer" or "Indie" for short has only one definition... A developer working without the financial aide or oversight of a Publisher. This term does not have any other conditions attached. What you've posted above and for that matter all you've posted since this argument started are Strawman arguments to try to defend your point of view on the matter. If a Strawman argument is the very best you can come up with than this argument is pretty much over as you pretty obviously can't defend the indefensible because it's just wrong... period.
I mean really... this whole thread is a paranoid delusion started by you. You really can't try to take the intellectual high road when from the very thread title it's pretty obvious you aren't one. You may want to read the rest of this thread because as others have pointed out it's pretty obvious you don't even know what "Jumping the Shark" actually means either. But I'm sure you'd probably turn that into a totally pointless argument as well because i'm also sure that that term has some special little meaning only you know from the precious little world you live in. I'm through here as I'm sure it's pretty obvious to anyone reading this thread other than you who's right and who's wrong.
Cheers Mate!
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}