Simple question.

Nope.

Still, CD Projekt Red is an independent studio, since it doesn't belong to any major publisher (CD PROJEKT, CDPR's and GOG's parent company, is a publsher in its own right in Poland).
You can also see that on digital distribution outlets (GOG, Steam, etc.) they are credited as developper and publisher of TW 1 and 2.
Now if by "indie" you mean do the games feel indie, with a small budget, a small team, etc, well no. They're AAA releases, but developped by a studio who doesn't belong to any major publisher like EA, Activision, Square Enix, etc.

This was my thinking, that CD Projekt, owner of the developers studio CDPR, was itself a notable publisher.

My second thought was that "indie" can be a term of praise, since these games do not have the mark of a game crippled by a publisher's demands, i.e., rushed, bland "mass appeal" content. There is creativity and quality content.

Check CDP RED's financial situation.

If they're backed up by banks and investors, then they aren't indie. Else, they are.

Honestly, who cares about whether some game is Indie or not. As far as it's a good game - play it :) Since CDRP own GOG i.e. they are distributors, and they are professional game creators I wouldn't call their games Indie (if it's supposed to mean amateur made games). And there are good Indie games by the way, so it's not a derogatory term in any way.

Belonging to some publisher is not a merit and has nothing to do with the quality of games. I think Indie usually means non professional or low budget projects. Witcher games are very professionally done and are big commercial projects.

Of course not. No indie studio could pull such an expensive game. But that is not an AAA either, fortunately.
So, could we say that The Witcher falls in the middle ground? A game with an indie spirit, but with more financial backup.

Indie just means they are not funded by the major publishers. Indie isn't a synonym for "low budget" or "amateur", otherwise we would just call them "low budget" or "amateur" games instead.

For example, all the games on Kickstarter are indie - doesn't matter if it's a $3 million budget like Wasteland 2 or a $200,000 game like FTL, they are all indie games.

As for professional vs amateur: if someone make games for living, if game development is their profession, then there are professionals, it's as simple as that.

First things first: while the budget of the game might not define indie status, but the size of the company does. And while CD Projekt Red might not be EA or Blizzard, they are not in any way an indie company.

They are a listed company on the Warsaw Stock Exchange with 94950000 shares. At the current moment I see PLN 5.44 per share, and a market value of PLN 512.73 mln, which is USD 162 mln.

And honestly, saying it's a game with an "indie spirit" is part of the problem with major developers today. If we assume that we can't get quality and originality from the big guys (which is not true, there have been many great AAA titles over the days) and accept it, then guess what? We are responsible for the decline in quality by accepting this.

Unless we're arguing the indie-status of TW and TW2 just because "oh this is soooo indie and therefore much cooler and will make me feel better" isn't it better to just say: CD Projekt RED are an example of a company that did it right. This is how a big company should behave! This is how you build goodwill, loyalty, and trust. This is proof that being big doesn't make you evil.

I agree with your last paragraph and the bulk of your post, Voodoo, but not with the second last paragraph. We aren't producing the endless rows of turds that are brought out, the gaming companies are. One could say it's indirectly our fault since way too many of us fall for their marketings tricks and buy their turds and then have the gall to say it's tasty, which means they have no incentive to produce good games because their blueprint corridor shooters are selling like hot cakes.

CDPR are certainly doing things the right way, and it's a joy to see *someobody* doing it, but the only way to force the hand of the big developers is to stop buying their filth, to hurt their wallets and bottom lines. Then they *have* to re-think things, and with the very many kickstarters succeeding these days, maybe that would actually open a few surgically closed eyelids.

That's basically what I'm trying to say :-) A sale happens only when supply meets demand. Where there is no demand, no supply will appear, or the supplier will go bankrupt. It is foolish to expect that game companies won't mass produce crappy games if people keep buying those. And a general belief that AAA titles have to be uninspired and shallow is EXACTLY what those companies would love, because with that sort of acceptance comes less criticism and more sales.

We can't directly make them stop. But we can change the market in two ways: first by being responsible with our money and only supporting what we see as acceptable business practices and quality. The second, and much more important in my opiniion since it directly influences our capabilities of performing the first, is to be constantly aware and not to conform with the view of a stagnant market with low quality as the benchmark. If you accept a reality you're being sold, you are on your way to buy the whole package.

So in this way I consider us, gamers, as responsible for the decline in quality. Because I believe in consumer responsibility, and because we have the urchasing power to make and unmake companies.

Yes, exactly. For example I avoid using DRMed services for that reason (besides other reasons). If everyone could vote with their wallets - DRM would be long dead already. This applies to many areas.

Yep. I tried to get everyone to refrain from buying Diablo 3, on the grounds that having to be constantly online in order to play a single-player game was too much DRM to be tolerated. I pointed out that if a game like Diablo 3 failed to sell a large number of copies because gamers wouldn't tolerate the intrusive DRM, then no other publisher would ever try to foist that upon us. I was told, "Get real, dude," as legions of gamers lined up to sell their independence for a game.

*sigh*

Oh, well. We'll always have GOG. ;)

I surely hope GOG will grow :)

No, they are not