{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/16/2025 9:42:54 PM
6
All the definitions I’ve found online say basically the same thing: indie devs are [i]typically[/i] small & not supported by [i]major[/i] publishers.
I think that’s why E33 is considered an indie game. Their publisher is relatively small, & was itself founded by a handful of indie dev studios.
I’d imagine most indie devs still work with publishers, with the exception of all the $2 UE/Unity slop on Steam.
English
-
"Relatively small" >Ubisoft
-
E33 was published by Kepler Interactive lol
-
Imagine that Activision made a sub studio with the exact same developers and called it poopfart interactive. then they make a Call of duty game, would you call it a relatively small indie developer? despite the fact that it's fully funded by activision with activision's developers?
-
No. Duh. I feel like that was pretty clear. Are you trying to compare Kepler Interactive to Activision?
-
Edited by Speaker: 12/18/2025 11:59:27 AM*120 million from Netease* hardly independant when their largest stakeholder is a chinese investor... I understand that most indie devs have some sort of backing, im arguing the semantics, of calling a game with multinational global funding streams, indie. Rant is complete; i can change nothing so i will shout at a cloud.
-
I didn’t know they had Netease money. They definitely don’t qualify as an indie publisher anymore then.
