I thought the whole point of independent developers was that they were by operative definition, free of such baggage.

I don't recall Jeff Vogel getting a cheque from some faceless megacorp to make Exile II, I certainly don't recall Steve Moraff's Cyber Pinball being funded by some startup group, and I can't imagine that even if I had a crystal ball to show the sales numbers, that investors would have flocked to a game like Nubby's Number Factory.

Maybe I have a different image in my head of what it truly means to be indie, (Video) and what separates a game from Dave the Diver from titles that were developed in a garage on an C64 and sold in a plastic bag with a handwritten manual.

I saw the original end of gaming as a hobby space (for a while), and I saw the return of the spirit of hobby which was a huge triumph!

This was all sparked off by a hyperbolic Eurogamer article, in case you were wondering; and a forum thread that followed discussing such an alarmist article. (TL;DR for that: The Industry is Changing, and I'm Scared - The Deputy Eurogamer Editor, post IGN buyout, whose job is likely a needlethread away from being cut.)

But that's just my opinion. What you say?

the indies that do the best are quickly either bought up.
or
ran by larger hidden entities to begin with.

that's how some indie games have such huge media penetration.

That's not quite the square I see Jeff fitting into.

true not all of them are in this sphere.
many of them are hard working people.

but i have watched communities suddenly change drastically and then they say... we got bought by....

Jeff Vogel has, however, used kickstarter to fund his recent games. For example:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/spiderwebsoftware/queens-wish-2-the-tormentor

(Worth noting, however, that the goal was set at only $40k, so the game is still low budget.)

And don't forget about the latest one : https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/spiderwebsoftware/avernum-4-greed-and-glory

Just a few quick clarifications I think are important:

1. Indie is about creative independence, not about having no funding at all

2. Since the millennium began, the indie scene has grown and evolved into the diverse landscape we see today

3. If you disagree with points 1 and 2, it feels like we're heading into a debate over definitions and honestly, I'm not really interested in that. It kind of smells like bait to me

If you want to define "indie" strictly as lone developers coding experimental games in basements with zero-cost tools, that's your call, and I won't stop you. All I ask is that you also accept the existing, varied indie scene out there. Then we can both agree that "indie" is conceptually vague and that clearer definitions would help.
At that point, we might agree to use parameters like team size, funding, resources, innovation, creative freedom, and community involvement to better categorize indie games. But honestly, I find digging into those details a bit boring and often unnecessary. I'm just a casual gamer after all. Maybe that "visionary Editor" could attempt a 1440° to explain what I mean!

Since the term 'indie' isn't protected in any way, it stretches from the 'independent small developer' it originally was to a 'hey, we saw that this label increases revenue' marketing term of large publishers. In other words: 'indie' doesn't mean anything apart from the fact, that someone wrote a catchphrase on the game.

Are you trying to say that indie devlopers houls not eat, pay rent, buy eqipemnt? And, god forbid, have a family to contribute to?

Even indie devs have to eat, pay rent and electricity, internet, etc., etc.,...

Edit:
Btw...you are the one talking about "faceless megacorps" here...but has the thought ever crossed your mind, that Jeff Vogel (and all the others) had to ask their banks for a credit (at least, if their families couldn't help/were unwilling to help)?
Zero involvement of "faceless megacorps" (if you don't extend that definition to any bank out there).

I'm saying there's a difference between the indie who got the massive capitol booster vs the grassroots developer.

So is this an either-or situation? It's either a “massive capital boost” or “grassroots”? That sounds very much like a false dichotomy to me.

And does “grassroots” mean that developers are not supposed to eat, pay rent, or have families?

(Is this boilng down to one of those “it’s not real art unless the artist is suffering” kinda things?)

Could you define "massive capital boost"?

Also: the only difference I see between indie devs, is that some indie devs work full time on their game, while others work part time.

And part timers are of course less reliant on bank loans (what you call "massive captal boosts", I guess) than their full time counterparts.

Because the part timers finance themselves through their paid day jobs.

i laughed one indie dev saw they were pirating his game and his response was..

here you go cracked without bugs.
that takes a real "for the people" attitude.

The quote specifically says “investment capital.” Loans are not investment capital.

Investment capital refers to money provided in exchange for a share in the profits. An investor gives someone money and, in return, receives a portion of the returns, if there are any. If there’s no profit, the investor typically doesn’t get anything back. It’s essentially buying ownership in whatever is being created. The person receiving the investment is giving up a share of ownership.

A loan, on the other hand, is a debt arrangement. There is no ownership exchanged. The person taking the loan retains full ownership of their product but is obligated to repay the loan, regardless of whether a profit is made.

These are two fundamentally very different concepts.

(The only thing linking them, I guess, would be that if you are trying to get a project off the ground and you have no resources to start with - if you get enough investment captial then you do not need to take out a loan)