So I've been contemplating this for a bit, and I wanted to know GD people's opinion.
I resent the people who "want to be a tester to play games" as much as the next guy, but would a good reason to apply to be a game tester be to get started in the video game industry? Do companies recognize that?

If you want to get your foot in the door to become a professional QA guy then sure, go ahead. If you want to get in as a developer, you'd be better off going for a developer job. There are entry level developer positions just as there are entry level QA positions, and your odds of moving up the developer chain would be vastly higher if you were, you know... a developer. I'm sure some folks do move up from QA, but I've never heard that to be a significant number, and if you end up demonstrating ability and skill, a lot of companies would be delighted to keep you in QA to ensure that they have good people there. Because it is important in its own right, and not just as a stepping stone to other fields.

1. I resent the people who "want to be a tester to play games" as much as the next guy,
2. but would a good reason to apply to be a game tester be to get started in the video game industry?
3. Do companies recognize that?

1. I don't resent those poor deluded souls.
2. Sure. What's your plan for moving up -- where do you want to move up to (what job), which type of company do you think you can best do that in (developer, publisher, platform holder?), and how do you plan to show that you are deserving of the promotion? (Working on a portfolio, are you? Going to school for a degree in your spare time?)
3. I don't know what that question means. The answer is probably no. Lots of people got their start in QA and moved up.

http://sloperama.com/advice/lesson5.htm

Personally, I'm on the fence about this one.
On the one hand, QA is a convenient place to start (but should never be considered the only entry point). It is something that I wish more people lived through so as to get a better grasp of "quality" and workflow/pipeline.
That said, everywhere I've worked, more than half of the QAs were aspiring for a position that had nothing to do with QA.
It is extremely hard to get QAs that are both good at what they do and want to keep doing it (and I won't get into the "why"s of that) yet, I feel that it was terribly lacking everywhere I've been so far.
I wish HR would hire QAs based on their skills AND future aspirations, so as to minimize the amount of people that are not going to stick with it, but I'm affraid that it may lower the skill level overall (aka, having to forego good candidates because they seek to become something else).

This probably doesn't fully answer your questions, so feel free to further define.