That.

Games (those that are worth playing anyhow) are usually too time consuming to make not to be a business, especially now (maybe you could have wowed people 40 years ago with something you could do in a week, but now, you're more likely to give them a yawn than anything else).

However, just because you have to make a living around your hobby doesn't mean that you have to be an asshole about it and squeeze every penny.

There is an happy medium between the philanthropist who owes nothing and the guy who would sell anyone he knows to slavery to increase his bottom line.

But this is the most awesome part of your country! For example, if you don't like living in Texas, try NY. It's like anybody can find a place for himself there.

Unlike in unitary countries where everywhere living is basiaclly the same.

Hmmm... Actually, this sort of thing also happens with great pieces of art in museums and what have you but they play out differently. Sometimes you'll see a piece of mexican art or culture in a british or french museum and the mexican government is asking for it to give it back (that was just a random example, I don't feel like googling for a concrete one). Just because there's a lot of people interested in seeing it displayed in a specific area, does not mean there won't be other parties with a better claim and interested in having it displayed somewhere else... where it might be even lucrative for them. I wouldn't be surprised if the legal messes that come out of things like these were similar or worse to the one System Shock 2 is in.

The different parties involved in the creation of a game may find themselves in a tug of war of economic interests, regardless of how big a cult following the product has. In fact, it's because the product still has a cult following that all the parties are interested in being the one with the rights to sell it. If the product didn't have selling potential, no one would give a damn. You may think that some old games should be exempt from all the corporate hassle because of their cultural status, but not even cultural or artistic icons are exempt of said hassles. Usually, the pieces of art you can enjoy at your leisure have their legal status already settled.

There's always been a lot of money, even power, behind art. If you have something that awes and impresses everyone with it's artistic value, you'll have people wanting to see it (or in the case of games, wanting to play it) and as long as there's people making an effort to witness/play your piece of art, there will always be people trying to make a buck out of it.

So, games are a business, just like art.

A little thing called the bell curve - we are not all made the same.
There are a lucky few who are creative.
There are a lucky few who are good at business.
There are a very very lucky few who are creative and good at business.
I am sure there are common traits to creativity and being good at business - which is why you do get some cross-over.

It all depends on your definition of "good" and "few" and on the size of the population of course. To be truly great in a specific field requires dedication and commitment - if you split that across two fields then both inevitably suffer - unless you are exceptionally gifted. And with a population the size of the human race you are going to find some exceptionally gifted people.

It's not just the US - its here in the UK too. It's all Gordon Gecko's fault.
Why does it have to be "maximum" profit - why not "just enough" profit?

Well thanks to the "maximum profit" philosophy we have worldwide crisis and recession.

There's a recession?!?

Not sure if serious or...

Nope. We've got a recession because recession takes place about every 20 years. It's just like economics work. Sinusoidally.

Well, it definitely has some upsides, no doubt, trying to "decide" on anything democratically sucks, though, people countrywide are pretty selfish and a lot of them are against any kind of spending... except for stuff that directly benefits them, then the government better get in there and "do something!"
It's because we use debt as a major vehicle for growth. We also no longer consider "land" a special form of capital, and it probably should be.

Oversimplification. Not the least becouse it depends on the assumption that business and creativity are really that seperate fields of human activity to require completely different skills / parts of your brain. Being creative and doing business are complex activities involving many different skills (not to mention it also depends on what kind of creative work / business you're doing). And we're not talking about the actual abilities but potential. Also being good at something doesn't justify doing it, for example being able to exploit doesn't mean you have to. We're not hardcoded to do specific activities in life. We make choices. Of course, as we grow older, they get narrower, but still. And we are responsible for them, and we are never justified by the way that things are. Couse they can always be different.

1. A certain type of economics. 2. As far as some economists claim.

You know it's a common, easy to access knowledge to check when recessions and booms took place for almost every country in like past 150 years?

Only commies live in constant recession ;D

But no. It's not a matter of opinion. It's just a fact. You may also argue that 2+2 =! 4 , but I don't have time for this.

I think imo the only way for games to be considered art and not a buisness is if the develepors makes the game for free just for the sake of making it.

A person like that has to have this kind of altruistic attitude,"I don't care about the money this game has to be made"

That's a rather black and white attitude. I'd contend that even Shakespeare was written for a profit. Earning something, whether it be praise or monetary remuneration, for your art doesn't make it cease to be art, but it might influence the nature and qualities of said art in either positive or negative ways (or ways that don't make it better or worse, I suppose). I think we'd just like, ideally, to not let other motivations for creating art beyond "for art's sake" to always push art in a negative direction. That it happens on occasion certainly isn't the end of the world, but if it is what usually happens then you have situation in which good art has a hard time flourishing.