In the same vein, having another company the size of EA or Ubisoft is a good thing, regardless of anyone's opinions about the quality of the product they produce. However, it does need the support of the law makers and government to make it happen. There doesn't have to be any tax revenue expenditure to make that happen. Even if the tax hit is taken in the incentive, the tax revenue goes up because more people are working than before and that is a constant source of revenue. Providing incentives for a company to a move a plant of any kind into an economically depressed area is almost always a boon to the area.
Game makers provide numerous jobs in not only software development but also in IT, any business discipline and if the company manufactures on-site, there are skilled labor jobs and even unskilled labor jobs available. The article is about the economic impact a very large company like EA or Ubisoft could make to an area. The article is not about subsidizing game makers. But more importantly, the game industry stimulates another $7.7 billion in related spending, bringing its net effect to $18 billion." sales of games for all platforms surpassed the $10 billion mark in 2004. ESA boss Doug Lowenstein talked about the economic benefits of the video game industry at this year's E3, pointing out that U.S. From the article: "While the nanny staters trip over one another in their rush to legislate games, they are missing an opportunity to embrace an industry that grows bigger every year, one that could brings jobs and educational opportunities to their constituents.
In the same vein as France's declaration of games as art, the 'Great Canadian Videogame Competition' may just mean more great games for gamers, more jobs for game makers, and the chance for a new EA or Ubisoft to emerge. This Sunday's political column on Joystiq gets into the economics of games, and why Canada's encouragement of game developing may have a very positive impact on the industry of the future.