4 ms·

Your caveat is wrong. The ESA, which has an incentive to play up the importance of the video game industry, puts the total number of people (not just developer

Your caveat is wrong. The ESA, which has an incentive to play up the importance of the video game industry, puts the total number of people (not just developers) employed "directly or indirectly" in the US by the video game industry at 146,000[1]. There are around 1.4 million people actually writing code professionally in the US[2][3], even if you limit yourself to the BLS's "computer programmer" and "software developer" categories. [1] http://www.theesa.com/article/u-s-video-game-industrys-economic-impact/ http://www.theesa.com/article/u-s-video-game-industrys-econo... [2] http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-programmers.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/c... [3] http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/s...

cwyers 12y ago
I think that's still at least an order of magnitude off "almost nobody."
- nknighthb 12y ago
  How low do you think it needs to be? I'd estimate no more than 1/3rd of the ESA's estimate could possibly be developers[0]. I would certainly consider less than 50,000 out of 1.4 million to be "almost nobody" for the purposes of this conversation. [0] And I think that's a very, very high estimate, it's probably closer to 1/5th, or even lower. There are a lot of art, QA, and support people involved in the industry, before you even make it to usual corporate overhead of management, HR, payroll, etc..
  - cwyers 12y ago
    50,000 out of 1.4 million is roughly 4%. So, yeah, like I said before: about an order of magnitude too high. But that's really a definitional argument, and those are dull. The larger point is that plenty of people still sell software to other people.
    - millstone 12y ago
      The FSF has this bizarre belief that companies write some software, and right before it gets shipped, pick the license under which to distribute it [1]: When we explain to the employer that it is illegal to distribute the improved version except as free software, the employer usually decides to release it as free software rather than throw it away. Our hapless employer wrote some amazing software, but then found out that they had to give it away! Hah, joke's on them! 1: https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/ https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/

cwyers 12y ago

I think that's still at least an order of magnitude off "almost nobody."

nknighthb 12y ago
How low do you think it needs to be? I'd estimate no more than 1/3rd of the ESA's estimate could possibly be developers[0]. I would certainly consider less than 50,000 out of 1.4 million to be "almost nobody" for the purposes of this conversation. [0] And I think that's a very, very high estimate, it's probably closer to 1/5th, or even lower. There are a lot of art, QA, and support people involved in the industry, before you even make it to usual corporate overhead of management, HR, payroll, etc..
- cwyers 12y ago
  50,000 out of 1.4 million is roughly 4%. So, yeah, like I said before: about an order of magnitude too high. But that's really a definitional argument, and those are dull. The larger point is that plenty of people still sell software to other people.
  - millstone 12y ago
    The FSF has this bizarre belief that companies write some software, and right before it gets shipped, pick the license under which to distribute it [1]: When we explain to the employer that it is illegal to distribute the improved version except as free software, the employer usually decides to release it as free software rather than throw it away. Our hapless employer wrote some amazing software, but then found out that they had to give it away! Hah, joke's on them! 1: https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/ https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/