"We need smaller studios and smaller games to train developers and staff up for big projects, and because sometimes they turn out to be good, or worthwhile, or interesting, or are able to take risks a AA game cannot. But, being honest, when was the last time you paid £20 for a game and expected it to take risks, rather than to provide a variation on an experience you have already had - especially when that £20 tag was not a deep discount a month after shipping in response to disappointing sales, like Alpha Protocol and Enslaved?" Lots of good points from Dan.

"Finally, if one can wrap a game around a complex issue like the national budget and engage that many young people, we should be able to do the same with other important policy issues, from climate change to health care. The budget was about the most boring issue one could take on compared to Lost, Heroes, World of Warcraft, or playing Moto Racer on the iPhone." Really interesting set of conclusions from a large-scale serious game.

"In this piece, each of the departments involved in making a videogame are examined and accused of one particular vice. In making these assessments, the assumption behind each is that the purpose of the videogames industry is to make games that players want to play, and not to make the games that developers want to play." It is good, and I'm looking forward to the second part.

"Despite all this growth, however, Deering warns that current development costs, currently in excess of $10 million for major titles, are unsustainable, given that less than 3 out of 10 games actually recover their costs." I knew it was bad, but I'd never thought of it like that.

"If you can't tell how long a piece of code would take when you have the finished product available, what chance do you think you have before the first line of code is written?" If only I could show this article to so many of my old directors.