Surfing through the forums i find people using the argument: games are a business.

Of course to a degree they are. That's becouse they require money and time to be made, and the creators want to make some living, and they want to market it to people. BUt we can say that about any, or most, works of art too.

Now i don't want to start a thread: are games art, by which people usually mean, can they be "deep", "enlighten" you, have "aesthetical" values or what have you. But one thing is clear for me - games create a deep, intimate relationship with their users, unlike, say, a screwdriver, a sausage or some utility software (although with some of them we enter a kind of a grey area).

That is, for me, the reason, why they can't be treated purely as a business. That's why all the buyouts, copyright trading, publisher influences on the development, all that stuff that concerns money strictly, but affects the way the game is published or developed, causes outrage. That's why this outrage is justified.

One proof of that is indie gaming. You don't get indie sausage or screwdrivers (although there are niché markets in utility products, but this are small grey areas and exceptions - nothing is ever black or white). Independent, means people wanting to decrease (not:eliminate of course) business influence on gaming. And it's not about whether indie games suck or not, it's about the fact that such a thing at all emerged.

Of course you may believe in a philosophy that "everything is a business". If so, please skip this thread.

EDIT: sorry for the typo in the topic, but editing topics is kinda problematic.

They are today, yes. And they shouldn't be. Games are art.

Art is a business? It is a long time since patronage was the common way for artists to survive?

No, games are now a service. Now be quiet and buy our annual subscription service for a modern military shooter that you used to buy. It'll be much better than their [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_Elite]annual subscription service for a modern military shooter that you used to buy[/url].

Sorry, I can't hear your complaining about our lack of dedicated servers, shoddy console ports, and exploitative customer-hostile business practices over the sound of all of the truckloads of money we're getting.

:)

indie != not a business

It is simply a different business model than mainstream games development

art != not a business

They have always been tied together - and very closely.

I can think of two games development models which are not businesses: modding and freeware.

Anywhere that money changes hands is a business and wherever that happens someone will want to maximise the amount of money and minimise the effort. Welcome to capitalism, have a nice day.

As i said it is not a black/white question but a degree one. Business is not just a matter of survival, it's accumulating wealth and becoming bigger, and richer. An artist is capable of sacrificing some of his greed in order to make products that he believes in, even if they sell less than others. Also artist creates culture on which people depend on, which they love, which they participate in and which shouldn't be stolen from them. That's precisely what i disagree on: the fact that money is the necessary evil so we can sustain ourselves and have time and resources to continue are passion, doesn't mean that we automatically should do the mini-max thing.

Anything you make to then sell and make a profit is a business. Anything that demands a creative output from you to express something is technically art (not always high, moving art, but still) and you CAN have a business selling your art.

Digital games are as much a medium to express one's self as is a roll of film or even a lump of clay, a rock of marble or a canvas. While some may feel the inclination to pour their hearts and souls into these mediums to express deep feelings, emotion inducing imagery or an incredible amount of skill, others will only feel a need to make a quick buck and others still will want to make millions of bucks if they notice the medium has a high demand, hence, the development of a business on said mediums.

Gaming's closest comparison to me is the movie industry. Back in the day, movies were more artsy than they are now. The artsy movies nowadays are mostly independent and don't make that much of a cash flow compared to their action packed, special effects oriented brethren. It's very similar to what we have now with games. I wouldn't call "Pong" a beautiful work of art, but better games that CAN create deep and higher emotions are not necessarily the ones making the cash flow. The highly publicized, action packed multi-million dollar franchises are. There will always be small studios trying to hit the jackpot with a low cost game (sometimes even succeeding) and we can even find examples of that happening on the movie industry as well.

So games are a business just as Hollywood is. Hell, just as the art industry is. These guys may have famous artists doing all the painting or sculpting work, but behind them is an army of people working to make them more famous, exhibit their creations and whaddayouknow? ... make the cash flow.

+1

This feels a bit like asking if 'writing' or 'photography' is a business; sure, people do all of these for a living, but there are also people who only do it for their own enjoyment. You can't judge the medium as a whole based on either part. The business of making and selling games is a business, and someone who only makes free games or mods isn't running a business.

Edit: Ninja'd by El_Caz.

Let's take literature as an example.

If we remove everything that hasn't been at least in part written to be sold as a book. We might have some children's stories and lots of awful fanfiction left as "pure" art.

Video games are a business. Just like art.

Can't help it but to be reminded of ME 3 "Artistic Integrity" BS

I'm not concerned about new stuff, but the old. Buyouts, bringing down franchises and development studios by new publishers-owners etc. Cashing in on someone else's work. There were discussion like that on forums. Specifically reffering to EA practices. It's completely justified to protest against such unethical treatment of something, that already established itself as culture. If something's possible doesn't mean you should do it. I can't prevent it, but I can protest against it. If you call INDIE another business model then fine, let's say art requires another business model. A model that will prevent situations like with System Shock - a game that has a huge cult following, that established itself in a culture of gaming, and that can't be distributed becouse somebody had the money to obtain and dilute the rights.

I guess that kinda depends on point of view. From the creation standpoint it is often a business. I say often because there are still people creating games where money is not the primary factor( or really a factor at all). When talking about a something like EA then the funders are indeed looking to create a product and sell it for profit, often with out any real regard for much else. Though some of the people involved in creating the end product may be exercising some desire for artistic accomplishment beyond simply getting paid.

So on the creation side I would think its a complex mash-up of varied interests and needs trying to fuse the two.

On the consumer side its mostly about entertainment and art, or perhaps an entertaining artistic experience. It feels less complicated on that side. It may help that there is less money, and fewer laws involved shaping opinion.

I don't necessarily like where the "its a business," mentality leads. When its the driving force running the show it tends to lead to all kinds of little hangups that can compromise the consumers' / artistic experience. When viewing some of those things through an artistic lens, some of that stuff can seem quite shameful. Especially when efforts are deliberately made to insure a game (the art) will be difficult to impossible to salvage in a historical context.

hm... if you are looking for ways of subsidising games (or art) you will open a new can of worms - is everything going to be subsidised, what is the criteria of what is or is not deemed worthy, who is going to decides so?

The problem is that a classic only becomes a classic after time have passed. Would you capture everything in the hope that something becomes a classic worth saving? and anyway - what is one persons classic (piece of art) is another's meh, not everyone thinks SS2 is worth the hassle.

This is what starting a new thread is about :) let's discuss it!