Some days ago there materialized a Rock, Paper, Shotgun article about how the term “indie” is…well, let me quote:

In essence, it’s a relic. Perhaps it held meaning once, but now it’s a rusty reminder of bygone times. … We use it constantly, and it’s created a plethora of negative, oftentimes limiting connotations.

Eh. Basically what happened to “indie,” as in indie games, is the same as what happened to “indie,” as in indie rock. The term was chosen because those whose work it applied to were actually independent creators, once. But because these independent creators produced work with certain things in common, “indie” came to suggest a way of doing things, a toolset of tropes and choices. And I’m sure you know what we call such a word. That’s right, ladies and gentlemen — it’s a genre.

So, yeah, it’s “limiting.” By necessity. A genre is whichever genre it is by virtue of not being another genre.

If you object to the genrefication of indie (and part of me does, actually), here’s what I’d suggest: let’s come up with a way to differentiate between self-published games with no budgets (i.e. indie games) and games whose experience either 1. results from the direction of one or very few creators, and/or 2. relies partly upon your acknowledging the agency of an individual creator or small team. Because that’s what we mean now when we brand games indie. Minecraft isn’t independent anymore by most metrics — hell, it’s an industry these days — but Notch remains an important part of the whole Minecraft thing, even if he’s stepped away from the project in a literal sense.

This would allow for the existence of seeming oxymora like the EA “Indie” Bundle. It wouldn’t seem so objectionable if we called it the EA Auteur Bundle, which, practically speaking, is what it’s called already.