Why don't we use words properly?

Words matter. Proper use of words matters.

Recognising intentional misuse of words makes all the difference in the world.

There are two words I keep seeing tossed around endlessly which are, from what I see, intentionally being misused to mislead and sell a particular narrative about the current state of affairs. These are “indie” and “redundancy”.

“Indie” is a truncation of “independent.” It indicates a studio or firm who is not owned or dependent on another studio or corporation. This used to imply smaller scale studios built by a group of passionate artists and developers building a cool game, making some money from it, then using that revenue to build a new game. Now, there are an increasing number of studios being touted as “indies” that are backed, subsidised, or outright owned by major publishers and megacorporations.

This damages what it means to be “independent” and makes it that much more difficult for truly independent studios and creators to gain traction. When a team of a dozen laid off devs banded together to make a game are competing for the same “indie” space, be that awards or simply a category in the marketplace as a 100-400 person company with branches around the globe and the backing of a megacorporation like Nexon, Tencent, Microsoft, etc. there is no competition.

This also creates a false expectation from and muddies the waters for consumers, particularly those who think they are supporting indies. “If Studio X can make a AAA quality game, why can’t Studio Y” The consumer may not recognise that Studio X is partially owned and substantially subsidised by the same megacorporation that just laid off thousands last week.

I am not saying indie studios cannot have financial backing at all and must be 100% from the pocket of the founder. I simply don’t think that the scrappy band devs who kickstart their game, win a grant, or draw in an angel investor should be put in the same category as a 100+ studio with the backing of an international conglomerate.

Next on the block, “redundancy”. Redundancy originally referred to something that was superfluous, unnecessarily repetitive, and can be eliminated without loss of meaning or function. I know that the British definition includes its common use to refer to layoffs, but that is the point. The implication of the word redundant is that it is something needlessly repetitive; something that can be eliminated without loss. Redundancy in staff would imply that two people are performing the same tasks and the loss of one will not impact the team’s function.

If a company declares 2k people “redundant” then says they cannot meet their production expectations; those people were not redundant. If the loss of those people impacts velocity, quality, or the very ability of the studio to make product, those people were not redundant. If the studio has to close down because it cannot meet its goals, those people were not redundant.

“But their profits/valuation are up, so obviously they were redundant!”

There are a lot of ways to massage profit margins and boost valuation. The latter routinely turns into a bubble because valuation gets too far from real world productivity. This does not mean the staff were redundant, it means that someone up above decided to change priorities. Labelling people “redundant” gives the implication that they are unneeded. It devalues their role and their skills. It devalues the person, rather than acknowledging the priority placed on investment gamesmanship.

I think it is high time we start paying attention to the words we use to describe things in this business and think about the implications. Perhaps it would also be pertinent to recognize when words are chosen specifically to spin a narrative in favour of corporations.