In the process I found two interesting links in my archives:

1.) Some notes I made about the Boston mayor wanting “more gaming companies” in the city.
2.) An Indian game industry analyst talking about the gaming industry.

Then of course I started thinking about the distinction itself a bit more. There were gaming (as in gambling machine) makers recruiting at GDC.

Natasha Schull another anthropologist who was studying the gaming industry and gamblers actually has some interesting insights that I think might be useful in thinking about the game industry.

So while it’s a useful distinction to be made, like most it is also a permeable kind of line, and as long as we’re talking about them it’s good. It’s when you stop talking about them and they become entrenched that you have a problem.

Actually… in light of recent addiction studies, I wonder if the game industry is thinking of distancing itself from the gaming industry, as gambling addiction is well documented.

-C-Out

Note that this is not an exclusive definition. I say “make money” is an important part because if you’re making any money off games, then you’re definitely in the industry. Doesn’t mean that if you’re not making money you aren’t–although you probably aren’t.

Now, the AAA game industry is totally another ball game with a very strict line of demarcation. I’d argue that Orbus is part of that because our staff comes from there and we target those companies. True Vacuum is certainly not a part of that (and is from all appearances proud of it).

I think its a blessing that “game industry” has become such a fragmented and diverse umbrella for a stagnating core and a dozen bold alternatives.