There are some blurred lines in the industry around what counts as indie or AAA nowadays. Is it about funding? Or scale? It's a discussion that frequently ripples up, and now someone involved in Palworld has weighed in.
John 'Bucky' Buckley, the head of publishing and communications at Palworld studio Pocketpair, gives his two cents on Twitter, going into how the economics have become "so blurred." He points out, for instance, that Palworld is fully self-funded. Pocketpair has no outside financial influence. Hence, the company believes it is indie by nearly any definition.
But where is the line if someone is taking outside money – often a necessity to get the project off the ground to begin with? "For me, creative independence is probably the most important factor. If a studio has genuine creative freedom, then I think it’s fair to consider them independent," he writes.
A pretty interesting write-up about how the label “indie” has become so blurred in recent years. We consider ourselves indie because we have zero outside investment or backing. Palworld and Pocketpair are entirely self-funded, but it’s understandable that our success makes people see us differently. On the flip side, many studios considered “indie”, including some that have won major awards and achieved huge success, have received funding and backing from much larger companies. So where does the indie line begin and end? …comments will quickly say “if you’re over X people then you aren’t Indie” but, I don’t think it can be clearly defined anymore. For me, creative independence is probably the most important factor. If a studio has genuine creative freedom, then I think it’s fair to consider them independent. If another entity is exerting creative pressure or making decisions for a studio, then I think that independence becomes questionable. Even then, plenty of studios receive external funding while retaining complete creative control. I don’t think having a publisher or investor automatically makes a studio any less indie. So yes, we still call ourselves indie. I know many people will disagree, and some will point to our size or the amount of money Palworld has made as reasons why we shouldn’t use that label. But from our pov, we’re 100% self-owned, we have no outside investors to answer to, and we have complete freedom to make the games we want to make. That’s what being indie means to us. If you’d rather call us iii or AA, that’s fine too! Ultimately, it’s just a label and all that really matters is that we’re still making fun games.October 29, 2026
"If another entity is exerting creative pressure or making decisions for a studio, then I think that independence becomes questionable," he adds. Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 comes up in the replies, because the release that courted some discourse after being nominated for Best Indie Game at The Game Awards despite the devs using an outside publisher.
Buckley points out, though, that if the assistance is purely on the marketing side, is it fair to force the AAA distinction? "Is it really fair to say E33 isn't indie just because someone helped with marketing?" he asks, before pointing to another big example: "Can we really say 'Stardew [Valley] isn't indie because Chucklefish helped out with some marketing years ago?' I think there's a lot of nuance to the label now."
Stardew is a huge franchise by now, with an official tour for the soundtrack, and yet the core game is still handled by ConcernedApe and a small team. It varies by degrees, but in Buckley's mind, it comes down to one abiding principle.
"Creative control is king," Buckley states. It's hard to argue, even if it's also sometimes hard to distinguish the team's dynamic from the outset.
