I agree with some of the post here that associates gamedev with the music industry. It's a non-tangible, mass distribute able product. One company can serve many. Remember that one of the reason Valve was here in the first place is that when they do a market research, Doom was the number one software installed, Windows was second.

And just like music, the winner hit the jackpot, the lowest one have to pay to actually do gig. And just like in films, stars get 20 mill per movie, most waited tables. While some people compare this to other job, that is NOT the case.

No matter how good a person is at flying, a commercial plane require two pilot - per plane. There is a limit of number of students per teacher. So on and so forth. But in game industry, a good company can serves many.

I get discouraged when I see the majority of games on the shelf of a retailer like gamestop being outshined by games like Modern Warfare, Assasin's Creed, Halo and so on

Speaking for the earlier versions of Modern Warfare and Halo, these games are actually really fun well built FPS in my humble opinion, just cause somethign is popular doesnt mean its "bad".

The way I see it, if a creative individual has a dream to release a game he or she thinks will be great based on their vision, they either have to do it on their own with whatever slim chance they have of doing so building a team, funding the project by themselves, and doing what it takes to get it out there, or work their ass off for years from the bottom to the top to have a say in what becomes of or what goes to accomplish that vision. The point I wanna make is that the industry needs some changes. I hate that everything comes down to money and the majority of gamers out there are so closed minded.

Alot of these dreams and ideas are worth as much as the paper they are written on, you have no idea how many times as a developer people approach me, friends and family with their multi million dollar idea that is sure to make us rich, and of course they ask me to build it myself ( free of charge mind you :-| ). Someones idea or dream isn't going to be any better just because they work as an individual rather than a company.

Honeslty hard work and determination and drive are sooooo much important then being "creative" individual, and like you said " they either have to do it on their own with whatever slim chance they have of doing so building a team, funding the project by themselves, and doing what it takes to get it out there, or work their ass off for years from the bottom to the top....." If you are just a creative person and your not willing to put the work in then I probably wouldn't want to play your game anyhow. Its not suppose to be easy and people aren't just going to line up to work on your project for free to carry at you'r vision, what about their vision? Thats why business works because you are compensating them for their time and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Dont get me wrong though im a HUGE fan of the indie market, and I literally just buy a game because its indie to support the indie market. But I wouldnt go to the extreme of saying indie trumps companies, alot of the big name games are actually fun and great, its terrible to shoot them down just because they have more money or are more popular.

I tend to agree with StormyNature on this one:

Welcome to real life.

EVERY industry requires money. About the only industry I can think of where someone can do well by themselves is medicine, but even that requires a staff of workers to support them. Maybe sub-fields like psychology where you could make your own appointments and really only need a professional-looking suite at your home.

But even then, money plays an important factor. Everyone still has bills to pay.

I tend to agree with StormyNature on this one:

+1.

I recently saw Moonrise Kingdom. It's way hidden underneath the summer blockbusters Brave, Madagascar, or even the horrible That's My Boy. The artistic quality of that movie is excellent. It makes me understand why people love creating movies. The camera angles, the panning, the framing, the timing, the conversations -- all of those are highly notable, is probably what movie-making is all about (I don't make movies, so I'm only making assumptions here that these are probably what those movie people love). The fact that Bruce Willis and Bill Murray are in there is a huge bonus.

Did it ever get publicized as much as the summer blockbusters? The fact that a low-quality movie like That's My Boy snatches the #7 spot in the box office tells you that hit movies, or games, do not necessarily equal to quality. Hollywood has its recipes for making big popular movies, just like EA/Activision have recipes for making million-dollar hit games. When money started to flow in, that's probably when games (or anything else really) starts to lose its "intrinsic" value. The goal is no longer about making a good game, but more money.

I'm gonna go with frob's perspective here: welcome to real life.

This is the nature of existence in a capitalist society. Life is money-driven, and like it or not, the majority of the population is motivated by few things besides acquisition of more money.

This is also hardly a new phenomenon, or in any way related to video games or technology. Philosophers as far back as the roots of the industrial revolution were making similar (albeit far more cogent and well-researched) observations. And philosophers ever since have been arguing about how best to cope with the way of life in such a society.

At the end of the day, there are many ways to deal with this, and which suits you best depends primarily on your own personality, desires, and goals. But all the answers boil down to one thing:


Congratulations, you've observed a key fact of life. Now go do something about it.

I would agree with the "welcome to the real world" sentiment, but also add that the last 5 (10 maybe) years have been great for the indie developer. The wealth of tools, engines, language choices, publishing options, knowledge resources, etc. now available is remarkable compared to when I started out in the hobby.

In fact, there is a great selection of "indie" games out there, exploring novel ideas and gameplay, and making money.

So - welcome to the real world, but it ain't really as bad as it seems.

I have mixed feelings about the videogame industry. Most of my work after I got my bachelors degree was in it. It's pretty neat at times, and I learned a lot in the process of working in it (I had to learn how to code in hard C for a project, and with it how to use void pointers).

You enter thinking that you are going to have immense creative freedom, then discover that you're working 80 hour weeks on a project that doesn't interest you at all. (On top of that the first place I worked for went bankrupt and I wasn't paid for a period of time, it was a big mess)

After being unemployed for over a year I managed to get into EA QA (I also helped out with some of the scripting as well). They were apprehensive because they thought I was overqualified, sure enough I was let go when the project was finished.

Afterwords I enjoyed myself much more as a programmer in a small independant company that mostly focused on mobile games or contracted work with larger studios.

It has a lot of ups and downs and for the most part it's just how the industry works. Lot's of hard work and stress, relatively lower pay, and a tough market to compete in.

Now I'm in graduate school on track for a PhD. Game programming is now a hobby of mine (It goes along with computational mathematics research well too). From time to time I miss being in the industry (I'm having some fun reading reviews for a game that just came out that I worked on for a few months), but for now I'm happy doing soemthing else.

I disagree that this is just the way the world is, or the way other companies are. Other industries aren't like this - even within technology/software, the long hours/lower pay seem to be a particular problem in the games industry, compared with elsewhere. Or are people disputing those claims?

Whether capitalism is good or bad for working conditions is a debate in itself, but there are plenty of jobs that do a lot better, even though the aim is still to make money.

The OP wasn't talking about working conditions so much as creative freedom and the drive to produce shlock that consumers will buy en masse. Nobody really disputes that industry working conditions could use some help in a lot of studios, but then, there's also terrible places to work outside of games as well, so... meh.

I think money (synonym for popularity), is the key. "Indie", to me, means not popular, and thus not profitable. Why hasn't there been a Jersey Shores game, yet? Give it a few months.
Eventually corporations will always figure out how to enter, and eventually drive a market. Heck, they pay people millions of dollars just to figure out how to. They take over something interesting and different, an outstanding idea, possibly unpolished idea, then drive it back to the middle, back into the grey muck known as "popularity".
And popularity is dictated by the masses. There are more 6 year old than 12, and more 12 years olds than 20. And 6 year olds are easier to impress. But I'm just as guilty - I still fan boy over such beloved horrible childhood atrocities as He-man, Hanna Barbara, and the Never Ending Story (wouldn't that be an awesome mash up, though?)
Sorry for the rant, but I've spent my entire life entering the game development industry, and know it is, in the end, as fundamentally rewarding as being a crack dealer in a playground. However, I can't help it - I love the challenges it brings. I wish I had been a doctor.