The Indie Identity Crisis: Why the Term No Longer Fits Modern Gaming

If you enjoy independent indie game coverage, consider supporting Indie-Games.eu on Patreon. It helps keep the site independent.

The term “indie game” has never felt more unclear than it does today. This problem has become obvious with the huge success of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, which earned 12 nominations at The Game Awards 2025, the most in the event’s history. Despite this, people are arguing about whether it should even count as an “indie” game.

The core issue is that the definition of independent has evolved so rapidly that the original meaning is now useless, leading to widespread confusion and frustration in the gaming community.

The Problem with Literal Definitions

The traditional, literal definition of “indie” (independent) across film and music historically meant a product created without the backing of a major studio or entertainment conglomerate. This definition naturally correlates with smaller budgets and higher creative risk, but it does not, by itself, preclude a large budget. For instance, if an extremely wealthy individual were to self-fund and publish a game for 500 million dollars, that game would technically be independent.

However, many in the industry argue that sticking to this literal definition destroys the word’s practical value. As one developer noted, if the definition allows for a game with a 500 million dollars budget and a team of 300 people, it completely disconnects the term from what the average gamer understands it to mean.

For the vast majority of gamers, the definition of an indie game is simple: a smaller game made with a small budget by a small team. Most players don’t care whether the game has a publisher; they care about how the game feels. Historically, this distinction was easy to make based on visuals alone, as low budgets generally limited indies to 2D or rudimentary 3D graphics.

Today, that line is hopelessly blurred. Studios like the one behind Expedition 33 may start as small, independent projects (sometimes recruiting teams through social media) before scaling up into an AA studio. Also, visually polished games that look independent, like Dave the Diver, are owned by major conglomerates like Nexon.

The Publisher Problem

The rise of specialized independent publishers further complicates the matter. The concept of an “indie” award becomes challenging when the criteria of having “no publisher” is technically obsolete, as most successful indies now partner with smaller-scale publishers. This raises a difficult question: where is the line between a specialized publisher like Devolver Digital and a major one like Electronic Arts?

Unlike the film and music industries, where the “major studio” cutoff was historically clear, the video game industry is younger, and its giants are less entrenched. Because funding deals may involve money from Sony or Microsoft without official “major studio” involvement, the industry lacks a clear, agreed-upon threshold for what constitutes a “major” publisher.

The ongoing arguments about nominated games, especially at events like The Game Awards where titles from big companies get instant attention online, show we urgently need clearer rules. Terms like AAA, AA, and Indie have always been flexible and casual. However, the word “indie” is now almost useless. Without a common agreement on what counts as a small budget, a small team, or a “major” financial supporter, the “indie” label will keep causing confusion and frustration instead of actually helping to group games.