You're making these hobbiests and independents out to be some new revolution. They've always been here. Ever since Bill Gates' generation, they've been here and they've never left. And they've always found ways of distributing their creations. Look at Newgrounds, for example. Hobbiests don't rely on investors. They make their games because they want to. And so what if they come up with something great and want to make a bit of a profit? So what if they get a following, and eventually blossom into a new independent game firm with new ideas popping out of their seams?Gralian said:
On the same token, ever since they started up there have always been the "big" gamemakers. And, just as with the hobbiests and independents, they will always be here. At this point, the industry outright demands a certain number of developers who can make big games to be sold to big markets on a large scale. The industry needs the big developers to keep going. Just as film couldn't do without the big studios to keep the general public in touch, video games can't do without the big developers.
It's a symbiotic system. Independents need big developers to use their giant piles of cash to make investments in big experiments and to make sure video games can reach as broad of an audience as possible (and to keep caught up with technology), and big developers need independents to keep the creative juices flowing and to keep them from getting set in their ways. What I see happening here is Nintendo has cut themselves off from those independents, and they've become so set in their ways that independents and hobbiests are a foreign concept to them. The market is broadening, and they just can't stand it.
And just what right does Nintendo have to tell these people they shouldn't create? Last I checked, the main criticisms of Nintendo as of late have been regarding their lack of new ideas and their attachment to what is safe, familiar, and guaranteed to make money. As a big developer with large amounts of cash, they have opportunities that independents work day and night for. Opportunities for free-range experimentation--the ability to try something totally new, and not be completely screwed if it happens to not work.
I'm not saying the entire industry should be like this, and nor will it ever be. Just as with films and books, there will always be the blockbusters that follow all the formulas and push no envelopes. And the industry needs some of that. But what it also needs is innovation, and currently the games industry is the most open to such innovation. There is still so much to explore with this medium, and to downright discourage that for the sake of preserving those stick-in-the-mud formulas and ideals is just an atrocity. It is an insult to the medium and to gamers as a whole.
To say that those people do not deserve to create is saying that gamers do not deserve what they have to offer. That all gamers deserve the same oatmeal slop time and again--slop prescribed only by the biggest and wealthiest game developers.
That is why I dislike what Fils-Aime said. He is saying that those people shouldn't create. Video games aren't about money or "market value" to them. They make games because they want to make games. That sort of dedication should never be discouraged by anyone. The games industry will always have big and little developers, and one should never belittle the other.
