I'm sorry, but your post is not very clear. I'll try to address the point I think you were making.

First, the megahit model the author is complaining about is the old model. That is how books, music and movies and games all worked for decades - huge hits would provide the profits to support all the other products the publisher made. It is still how publishers in all those areas work. The only way to avoid it is to go indie and sacrifice some aspects of the game design. There are no other options, given how difficult AAA or even AA game development is with current technology.

There is no 'new model' for AAA video game publishing. Indies that sacrifice on some parts of game development can avoid relying on megahit models. But those games - while great - are demonstrably of lower quality in many areas and often limited in genre by the developer's capabilities - this is part of the reason so many indies are platformers and not open-world RPGs.

Second - I was pointing out that the author doesn't understand fundamental facts about the history of game development and the video game market. He is complaining from a position of ignorance. That doesn't make his complaints invalid. Video game development is ludicrously expensive, and greedy investors can be a problem. But it does mean that we have to be very careful about what he says, because he really doesn't know what he's talking about.

There are heavy regulations in the US. The reason things are still bad is because more regulations does not mean bad people running institutions will become obedient to necessary standards. It just means smaller businesses have a harder time growing and entrepreneurs have a harder time starting a business. The larger businesses have no problem hiring lawyers to help them find and exploit loopholes or pay off the fines that they can easily afford which they view as business expenses. This concept is not a new one since many of the old "trusts" got powerful by lobbying state governments and the federal government for special rules and privileges.

It does not help that much of these regulatory bodies in my country are filled with lobbyists. See Michael Taylor (FDA) and Thomas Wheeler (FCC) for further details.

Indeed there are tons of regulations. This is one simple fact that leftist, anti-capitalist movements don't seem to grasp. Every time some environmental or economic issue raises its head, people clamor for more regulations to control industry and markets. The big corporations have always been able to avoid or pay for these fines and taxes... it's called the cost of doing business. I worked for Wal-mart for several years. When I first got hired my store got fined over $200,000 for OSHA safety violations. That level of fine would put a lot of smaller companies out of business. Wal-mart never batted an eye. In fact, the only consequence from it was they threatened to take away the employees' yearly bonus to cover the expense. Top down power structure in effect.

Government regulations are always touted as protecting the working man and going after greedy corporations, when in fact they always hurt the common man and actually protect the very corporations they're supposed to keep in check. What we have is an incestuous relationship between governments and corporations for the benefit of themselves at the expense of everyone else. The more appropriate term for this system would be FASCISM. And that's exactly what we're dealing with. NGOs, non profits, public private partnerships. They're all under the same umbrella. And as long as everyone on the extremes of left and right constantly chant the same bogeymen agendas, nothing will ever change.

But hey, let's have some more regulations. Let's have some more market restrictions. It will save labor. It will save jobs. It will bring equilibrium and justice... blah blah blah. Same old mantras. Same old bullshit left/right tennis match.

Although I don't agree with simply deregulating everything, I DO agree that over-regulation is just as bad as under-regulation and we do have to find a middle ground. That's part of the plan though. Split us up, and take advantage of us. We get the right going after the left and the left going after the right.

Because freedom is a nice concept, but its just an idea not a rule not something you can compare to physics or anything objective. Objective freedom doesn't exist, you're always bound to something, the country you're born, its society, your body etc... Lots of people brag about how free they are, while every corporate marketing tactics always insist on how "free" you are or you should feel when you buy and consume their goods at the point that this word has less and less substance as time passes. What does freedom means when it is explained "as follow the herd and be happy, because you are free" ? I think its just better to accept that freedom is just a good idea to aim at rather than something effective. Letting chaos drive our lives is just as ideological and unhealthy as communism. Instead of giving power to those who understand and control the state it gives power to those who control and understand the markets and consumers do not control the market, they're just free to buy stuff and be influenced, it doesn't change anything its another pointless extreme we are inheriting from the 20th century.

As for the article, I think its pretty absurd that videogames would have existed and expended in such a way without capitalism, its just not possible for many reasons and the article actually uses that word badly, indie devs still require steam/gog or else to publish their games and are sitll caught in capitalism and cannot escape it, and its just stupid to believe otherwise. Now... can the videogame industry escape corporatism and the focus on profits for shareholders ? Probably more than other industries, but its going to be painful as well.

This, There is a sane middle ground between a Soviet Union style system where the Government controls everything,]
and a Ayn Rand world were business can do whatever it wants regardless of the conseuqences.

I look much more favorably on regulations that protect the environment and public safety,less favorably on regulatation that try to ensure that the free market, mainly because you will never get people to agree about what is "fair"/

Eh what is the new model? Sorry I may be ignorant in this. I still thought that big publisher still go by the megahit model and milk megahit titles with DLC, microtransection, spin off sequel?

I think you don't need to abolish capitalism for what you want to achieve. Tax the rich (especially income from capital gains) to reduce inequality, tax resource usage or even limit (auction) resource usage to keep the development sustainable. You can all do this within the limits of capitalism and governmental regulation.

And the alternatives, for example socialism, were also really bad in keeping the environment clean or keeping working standards and general wealth high. Therefore I think that capitalism probably must be important part of the solution.

Politics is made by people. We cannot just put in into the hands of experts and let them do it. They will not act in the best intent for all the people.

And now comes the interesting, ironic fact. Tax the rich, tax ressource usage, that sounds so simple and there are parties all over the world who propose such action, but they are not elected. In the US in the last congress elections in 2012 voters (who voted) voted in majority for Republicans which are not known for their overly adoration of high taxes especially on wealth or for environmental issues. For some of them this is synonym of communism, which it isn't - it's simply capitalism with regulation which is the most normal thing on earth - but still there are many people who do not want higher taxes on the rich (even if they are not rich themselves) or higher taxes on the environment (even if it would make a better world for their children). Do you understand this conundrum? I do not understand it.

Either many people are stupid (this is nothing personal, just a general statement) and somehow easily deluded to vote against their own interest (which I think is not really likely) - although many do not vote at all (so maybe these are the stupid ones) - or politics is just too corrupt (very likely, but what to do against it?) - or people have not enough kids (so they do not care about the future much) - or people overestimate their own wealth (I'm not rich but if I would be rich I would want to keep my wealth).

As I said, I do not understand it. Basically I don't think that there will be a change soon. Let's wait at least 10 years until inequality and environmental destruction have progressed a good deal. Then we might have enough pressure for change and then we will seriously talk about higher taxes on the rich and higher taxes on ressource usage. But probably not now, yet. I guess, it has to get worse before it can get better, because people are just not interested in politics and do not care enough to change something already now. Nothing one can do about it. It's inevitable and I'm absolutely pessimistic there.

Yes, they do. Big publishers still have to rely on the megahit model, due to AAA game development costs and the inherently risky nature of a markets that rely on customer's whims. The indie model - spending time or sacrificing graphics or game features instead of paying money - isn't new per se, but it's gaining ground and becoming much more common.

The only 'new' model I referred to was that books and movies are in transition to subscription services instead of paying for individual products. That's a huge shakeup of those industries, and sub models are not something that has been very common before (lending libraries in the 1800s are the only thing that comes close, I think?), but it hasn't worked well for games yet, and I doubt we will.