Thursday, May 26, 2011 3:45:03 PM
Fair and balanced my ass. F*ck you Fox news. Obviously trying to skew the issue by opening up with 'should tax-payer dollars pay for call of duty?` while showing scenes of violence from the game.
Thursday, May 26, 2011 6:08:18 AM
$200,000 is NOTHING compared to what major commercial game developers spend on a single release. Besides that, any games that are getting funding are not going to be designed around a business strategy or trying to pull a profit, but rather independent developers that have a project that will more than likely be for educational or artistic value. The debate isn't about whether games are art or not, they are.
Thursday, May 26, 2011 6:07:01 AM
batmanners, you dont seem to get how this really works. the money would go to indie developers. developers are the artists. when it comes to the business aspect, that would be the publisher, the ones who put the money into the game being mass produced.
to use altaru's reasoning, the developer would be michelangelo (the artist), while the publisher would be the person who commissions them to make the art.
it is only after the art is originally produced that the publisher takes the developers work and mass produces it. there are thousands of re-creations of masterful artworks (stary night, the screamer, david, mona lisa, etc.) all around the world. just because they become mass produced doesnt mean the original work isnt art.
Thursday, May 26, 2011 5:13:41 AM
"So, what? Just because you make something people enjoy and enjoy some modicum of success and popularity for it, it can't be art and you can`t be an artist? "
No, I`m saying that if you want to be artful, you don`t sell out to become successful. The Beatles made it rich and famous by believing in what they do and doing it well. Backstreet Boys were created in a marketing meeting.