Ok, i think the definition of art would be something you make out of joy of making it and doesn't have anything to do with quality or money. If you want games that are art, you go to google to search free flash games, since they are the only form of games today that are art. The moment your "art" is made to reach public to make money, we are not talking about art anymore.

So, to your question, business first. Well planned businessmodel makes sure we get games in the future too and frankly, i more gladly play games that are made in business sense for me, than some teenagers perverted fantasies that don't appeal to anyone and are art.

Depending on what you're saying, it's either too late for that or it has always been the case.

The time when a garage programmer and his artist friend could create a so-called AAA game is long past. People nowadays expect cinematics, lots of content, detailed textures/models and other things which take too much time for a pair of guys to create.

On the other hand, it has always been the case that the programmer/artist duo can create an innovative game... It just won't be up to the standard of the industry in terms of content and scope. It can definitely work in some genres like puzzle games though. But then I'm guessing that hordes of raging fanboys would cry "OH ANOTHER CASUAL GAME WITH SHITTY GRAPHICS".

As for the average person, no, sorry not happening unless there's a revolution in AI which allows for computers to create software from high-level specifications. Other than that, there's only those game making tools which allow for making 2 or 3 different games for which you can customize the sprites (I'm exaggerating, but you get the point).

Profit is the number one concern for a business.

That being said, it's not one or the other. Just like movies. There's different genres and different sub-markets.

A high budget action game can sell a large portion of a smaller sub-market and make a profit. A low budget casual game can sell a small percentage of the overall market and make a profit.

The problem is costs. This generation of hardware was a big jump in developing the software to maximize the potential of the hardware and artistic assets got larger and larger.

As this new level becomes more explored that technology will already be there.

Movies share sets, props, etc. Games will be able to do this more and more. Once a "perfect" model of New York is made, why should they have to go through and redo the whole thing.

Along the lines of product placement. Why not have the characters wearing a designer and when you turn the game on have a little random blurb about one of the designers each time "Nikko's Wardorbe Provided by Versace" or have it on the price tag when you goto the store.

It doesn't all have to be Tacky and overdone like Crazy Taxi's version of San Fransico (where you better like KFC) or Sims IKEA.

"The time when a garage programmer and his artist friend could create a so-called AAA game is long past. People nowadays expect cinematics, lots of content, detailed textures and models and other things which take too much time to create."

Not entirely true.

Granted, a game being published and distributed via traditional retail channels is NOT going to be done by a single digit team of developers working out of a house, it is entirely possible for a small team, and even one person to design and develop a game in today's gaming market, with minimal resources effectively.

Jonathan Mak's Everyday Shooter is a prime example. One guy was responsible for the entire creative process from concept, design, programming, music, etc. and the result was a very different, extremely enjoyable game for $10.

Not a lot of resources are commandeered in the production of games in this niche.

If the game play is simple, yet borderline addictive, people will still buy e-distro games for the price of a movie ticket. PSN, XBL, WiiWare all support this idea.

Can they be distributed and sold for $50-60 through retail channels? Of course not, but they can still be successful critically and from a commercial standpoint due to their relative simplicity.

If anything, it's the big budget games that require lots of resources over a protracted time table that are the threatened species if too many fail to make a profit or just break even.

What that could potentially mean is that fewer risks will be taken, particularly in respect to new, big budget IPs, or at least new IPs with original and untested concepts.

The concept games, those risky, untested, often artistic in an indy film sort of way, are the ones free to take leaps by doing something different without a whole lot of financial risk.

Hi, I would like you to meet a certain green god called Mo'nay some call him Money. Anyone who doesn't worship him are just losers.

Loads of movies suck, loads of paintings suck, loads of shows suck, lots of games suck. It's does loads of sucky games that shows something is doing good because everyone jumps on the bandwagon to make money.

I never thought about it this way. So when I got a job, I was really just jumping on the bandwagon to make money?

it'll be just like the movies, some movies are made to make money, some are made to win oscars. Game companies will do the same.

They will make the games that will give them money, and they will make games that will be less successful financially but will buy them credibility, essentially improving the draw their brand has. Nintendo didn't get to be the name it is now by focusing everything on sales and money.

@omgwtfbbq: Of course it's not just about making money, they got their name from other qualities, than just their ability to make money. But even then, it all turns out Nintendo having the right businessmodel. If Nintendo would just have been making "art", they'd never got popular and still wouldn't have name of anykind.
Visit an art gallery, what do you see? Lot's of art, which is made by people who nobody have ever heard of. I doubt anyone can really say Picasso being better than some random guy making similar art, or a dozen of them, but still, for every "Picasso" there's hundreds of artists, who never get to be known by public, while they make just as good art as the "Picassos".

Hate to say it but 'art' rarely sells. Take Okami as an example. There's countless others. However it is still important as wilthout artistic freedom the industry stagnates.

Business must come first but profitable businesses should always do a few 'artistic' projects to help expand and break away from the endless sequels/copies of popular franchises.

When you read a book is it the words that matter to you or how much the author and publisher are making? When you watch a movie is it the quality of the actual movie or how much money the studio is making that matters to you? No then why are some people so worried about it when it comes to videogames?

The majority of good games actually do sell well or at least enough to break even and it does lead to a survival of the fittest situation. It also helps to cut down on the crap as well since companies have a lot on the line (with HD games). They don't have the luxury of companies like Data Design Interactive that flood the Wii with crap and are not held accountable for their games since they're able to make a profit despite the quality of their products.