Stuff I disagree with:
"Games will be respected soon because gamers will grow up and become politicians."
I think it might happen, but only if games reach people differently, if they're less stuff for teenagers.
However, as an entertainment medium, it's a very hard task.
But politicians aren't afraid of showing at sports games, so who knows? Obviously, you find the old bias against games where you sit, so there's a filthy aspect to it.
It's only by making pompous barely playable art, as a branch of intervactive video pleasures and leisure of some kind, that I think the whole industry will be looked at differently.
"The anonymity of the web and online gaming in general empowers hate-mongers, bigots and delinquents."
All depends what you mean by personnality. There's the hidden one, which you can't let go in society, and the mask. So yes, it does empower hate-mongers, bigots and delinquents, because they can become what they are without as much restrictions as they face in real life.
"Gamers in the future will be even more hardcore and willing to wear the label."
People who like music may not label themselves as audiophiles, but many like to wear the label of artists and bands. This happens a lot when a form of pressure has people think they need to openly fight it.
Video games being an ugly monster and a formidable scapegoat at the same time, it's a perfect bath to have people proudly claim their gamer attitude. It won't have the same impact when, well if games become usual.
From there, gamers might wear the names of the companies which shock audiences with their products, or did so in the past, like Rockstar, id Software or Running With Scissors, to detach themselves from the crows of gamers they might even secretly despise.
"The publishing landscape won't change. Developers will be stuck as second-class citizens in forced deference to publishers."
Not to be a contrarian throughout the column, but I respectfully disagree. I think that we're heading for far more consolidation, in both the publishing and development communities. I'd go so far as to say that we'll be three major publishers less by this time next year.
Some cannibalized by bigger publishers to become stronger? The lesser they are, the stronger the survivors. They grow in power faster than they adapt their positions.
The banding of developpers is a process that barely takes off, notably because there are so many philosophies around. Where are those formidable entities devs coalesce into?
It will take some major move to get the vergence start. Devs have to be brought into a state of mind where they would not fear, nor be ashamed to adhere to a group with a "labour force" sticker on the front, because that's basically what it boils down to. Devs live or die by one game, publishers have entire catalogues at hand. They keep gaining power, therefore they remain the more apt to finance projects, thus they earn most of revenues or eat studios.
Only more faire funding projects, or governmental credits and start to slowly dent that machine.
I give you the amazing success of web email as an example. Why pay AOL every month when Google gives it to you free?
Not everybody works under the Goodle dominion that said.
It sounds like there is a contradiction between that claim and your earlier prophetized publishers' power reduction.
