Yeah. But if you're NOT an inide, they have been getting pricier, especially if you need source, release an SDK etc.
 

Yeah, because "indie" means people who will spend lots of time trying to make a game that will never sell and they almost always fail, so there isn't much money to be made there. But since they're going to spend all this time trying, wouldn't it be better if they tried using our (their) tools? If our (their) tools are used, the people who know them will increase and some of them might end in larger teams and influence the tools decisions of that team. Even if they don't join such teams, they will have spent enough time to learn the tools and people pitch tools they invested time in despite the tool quality. So even if some other tool is better, the people who invested time in our (their) tool will suggest ours (theirs) not the better tool.

So having more users is directly and indirectly better.
 

My read of the press release is that it is for Independent Developers (as in studios not publisher owned) not Indie. Previously if you wanted Havok with source you needed to have a licence for each project, even in the early stages. Now you can have an annual fee and you don't need to pay the per SKU fees until you are ready to release.

I don't know what the annual fee is but I suspect it is out of the range of the five-man band Indie. Though knowing Havok it is probably negotiable.

The publishers don't need this since they seem to have Havok licences in bulk.

Colm Mac
 

It looks like this is more of a lower-cost option put in-between their more expensive licensing and their existing low-end program for hobbyists. Still not sure if it would be appropriate for all indies, but it sounds like they might be negotiable for bigger-budget indies (the ones with more than a shoestring but less than a million dollars to make a game).