The lesson for me from modern mobile games and microtransaction models is that addictive gameplay is actually distinct from engaging gameplay and very few modern developers are focusing on the latter. It seems to be very nearly the exclusive domain of indies nowadays.

I can't think of a single mobile game that has any artistic value to me, but there are quite a few for the PC and consoles. A front-end for farming money and high quality entertainment should be considered different kinds of computer programs, and not lumped together as "games".

> I can't think of a single mobile game that has any artistic value to me

Monument Valley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_Valley_(video_game)

I guess I don't ascribe particularly high value to the category of games, I think even very simple games designed to take money from the player count. But I do agree on the mobile vs PC divide broadly in terms of what's on the market. I would actually cite Civ as a series that's still trying hard to do engaging things, in the form of constant but varied puzzles with intellectual complexity which reward planning and forethought.

I envy it, because it relieves so much stress and other things that kill creativity. Unfortunately I can't just go without income, so the idea of a purely passion project isn't really in the cards for me unless it's a very small effort.

I think the framing of the article is odd. I'm assuming he was paid a salary as an employee of MECC. That was his pay. He got paid.

If the article is supposing he should have some intellectual property rights since he and two colleagues invented the whole thing... I agree! However, employment contracts still stipulate things like any and all intellectual property created by the employee on company equipment is automatically owned by the company. Some contracts are even more restrictive and give companies ownership over everything their employees create while they're under contract.

God forbid your employees have hobbies they might want to monetize. It's a great way to stifle creativity and progress IMHO.

Although, as a professional software developer, I've found that it makes me value my ability to write software more than the software artifacts I create. Kind of like an artist. Only one person can own your painting or sculpture. Your ability to create art is what puts food on the table.

>...However, employment contracts still stipulate things like any and all intellectual property created by the employee on company equipment is automatically owned by the company. Some contracts are even more restrictive and give companies ownership over everything their employees create while they're under contract.

Oregon Trail was created before he took the job at MECC. He essentially donated the code to the company.

In 1971, the idea of selling software was completely foreign. If it was important software like a compiler or OS, it came with the computer you just spent millions on. If it was important software that you needed to run your business, you paid your team of programmers to develop it. If it was something inconsequential like a game, you gave it away.