Is your article here? http://liveforgaming.wordpress.com  If so, what is a directly URL link to the editorial?  Anyhow, either way, what is the URL?

The videogame industry is going to be facing issues if the venture capitalists pull out.  Look for more indy projects to develop here and focus more on low cost novel play mechanics and you funding game development yourself.    You also likely need to build a community that will follow you and support your game, and work that way.  AAA budget games are set to likely decline here.  And the suits driven by money only will end up moving on.  The industry will then stop being as stupid as it has been.

Of course, this may result in another crash.

No it was the one I wrote recently here at VGC talking about how devs have supplanted key gaming features and long term success for "shock value" or that was the implied gist of it haha.  You might have already seen it but here's the link.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=101539

Ok, I remember that.  I was saying I think you meant "marketing" more than "advertising" in your article.  I would also say that if you replease "shock value" with "feature points marketing surveys called for" (and possible some shock value), then you would be on target.

Anyhow, if we face contraction, a plus side would mean that Michael Pachter would have to find another industry to follow.

Well yea it should have been marketing but was actually tryign to semi-quote something I had heard from someone before, namely my old boss as I mentioned in the article.  But you'll notice how through the rest, I use marketing a lot.  But I think "shock value" is appropriate.  "Shock value" is wow-factor, and while all things need this, it can't be the only thing there.  Nor can it be the focus.  It is definitely "feature based marketing" so I do see that as another way to put it.

Ok, I understand what you mean by "shock value".  I had assumed you were using it in the terms of "controversial" (Hot Coffee).  But in regards to that, I would end up going with the marketing suits look over demographics, and see this and this are HOT so they then have to concoct a game that would have the hottest and latest bullet points.  They end up running something with novelty factor into the ground doing that.  Rather than offer innovation and expand the market, they run stuff into the ground.

This seems to be the trend of money people.  They did this with poker.  Rather than try to get new games to take off the way poker had, you had everyone on TV jumping on the poker bandwagon and riding the horse until it died.  And the videogame industry follows suit.  Enough is enough here.  If the money ends up leaving (venture capitalists pull out), then maybe we get some more sanity.

Zucas, I reread what you wrote, and feel that the first part about the advertising does emphasize stuff I didn't get into. I do believe the money angle is what drove this, and people going for gimmicks they believe have sales point. The part I see is an issue is that what was a said "gimmick" that did work, and was innovative, gets run right into the ground, and gets boring.

Anyhow, I am facing issues here working in an area people don't see money now, that being abstract strategy games. Is anyone out there believing there is money in chess, checkers, Go and Blokus now? Nope, so I am left alone. But watch here... Say the non-profit I am with breaks through with something, and it carves out a meaningful niche. In will come the money people, who know nothing about the niche (except it has money in it) and they will take their own have to market a certain way bit and produce clone after clone. They will attempt to act like a pack of vultures and ruin things. Well, I hope effective branding, owning by the players (and designers), can help counter this. And on that note, I welcome anyone to help me with this project here.

Heh, it looks like the price ticket to enter the video gaming industry is about 6 million per title per year. And it's only getting pricier.

That's 6 million per year, not total. A lengthy title can easily swallow 20 million over 3 years or so.

The industry has issues.  One can develop a Euro style boardgame for a lot less money, and provide replayability that surpasses what you get out of videogames, and an experience that is nearly as engaging.  The only aspect this is an issue is manufacturing costs of the physical components.  If you question this, I can list numerous Euro-style boardgames that fit this criterion. 

The moment the videogame industry is going to have costs rivaling movies to put games out is the moment it is setting up for mass contraction.

that thought crossed my mind, but I took it as $x funded the complete development of #y games that released in 2008 or 2009.