Which begs the question: do doctors earn more from prescribing drugs (effectively selling them) in America than they do in the average country with free healthcare?

No, they don't. In fact, most doctors don't sell drugs themselves. And the pharmacies that do sell drugs do not pay doctors for their presecriptions, they just check with them to insure that the prescriptions are legitimate.

Pharmaceutical companies do send representatives to try to persuade doctors to use their products. But they do not pay doctors money to prescribe their drugs. In fact, I'm pretty sure that such practices are illegal here in the U.S. On top of that, such actions would be useless in the long run. When a doctor prescribes a name-brand drug, the patient is not actually required to buy that specific name-brand. They can request a list of generic alternatives from their pharmacist, and the pharmacist is required to tell them if any exist. Since the exclusivity patent on most drugs is limited to only a few years, numerous generic alternatives exist for almost every drug in circulation. Even if doctors prescribe a specific brand of drug, any savvy patient can acquire a much cheaper chemically identical alternative just by asking for it.

I'm actually planning something similar. However, I am intentionally keeping the logic for my game as simple as possible. I'm not going to be going the full-on CCG route, like Yu-Gi-Oh or Magic: The Gathering. My effort is going to be basic turn-based, with some very simple rules.

I would advise that you also try to keep it simple. You should first break down the logic of your game down into the most abstract categories possible. You will want to first define what each player can or can't do on their "turn," and how the end of their turn will be reached. I am not that familiar with traditional CCGs, so I can't help you too much in that area. I would imagine that some options can limit your oponent's turn, so the length of each turn would probably have to be variable.

From your description, it seems like you would be interested in a more "component" approach to the design of your logic structure. It might be a good idea to check out the PushButton Engine. This is a Flash AS3 engine that uses a component architecture. Even if you don't want to use the engine itself, you can peruse the source code for an idea on how component-based games are programmed. In component architecture, objects are as generalized as possible, and then have various components added to them. You could make an extremely generalized "card" class, and then attach various components to each individual card to modify its properties. This type of architecture also lends itself well to scripting with XML or databases, so you would be able to define your available card types there, instead of in the source code.

It's called sarcasm.

Sarcasm is spoken, not written. Sarcasm relies on inflection to indicate that the speaker is being facetious. On a internet forum, a well-placed smiley or other such symbol could be used to the same effect.

As many have already pointed out, you won't know until you try. And since Sprite comics tend to be one of the easier ways to produce a webcomic, there's no real harm in throwing together a few examples. They are just static images after all.

It's worth pointing out that since Sprite comics are derivative in the art they use, the primary value in them will always be the writing. If your humor writing for them isn't solid, they are going to suck. So put some real thought into the dialogue you write first and foremost. It would be a good idea to put a bit of research into the titles whose sprites you will be using.

So, is Blizzard an indie development team?

Like I pointed out earlier, this is pretty cut and dry. No, Blizzard is most certainly NOT an indie development team. They aren't even close to being indie, and haven't been for almost a decade. They have been signing on with various publishers for a long time. First there was Cendant, then Vivendi Universal. Finally, they merged with Activision. Blizzard is "The Man." There isn't any question about this. They are not an indie developer.

If you are looking for a point of ambiguity, you'd be much better off bringing up Valve as an example. On the one hand, they qualify as an indie developer, as they retain the option to publish their games through any company they choose. They don't have any oversight to worry about from anyone but themselves. At the same time, they've expanded the scope of their company into publishing through digital distribution. At this point, are they an indie dev, or a publisher that happens to make a few games on the side?

Other good examples would be Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, and Insomniac. All of these companies have been making games exclusively for Sony hardware platforms for years. But I don't believe that any of these companies is actually owned by Sony. They could all pack up and move to other publishers or platforms if they liked. By technical definition, they are all indies, but they often behave as if they aren't.

Although this is a good idea, the truth of the matter is that there probably will never be just one solution. If anyone wants a quick-and-dirty solution, WordPress would probably do them fine. If they want a more in-depth solution, they probably have the know-how to do most of what you're describing themselves.

Web sites tend to be very personalized, especially for artists and designers. Although there is merit to this idea, I'm thinking a tutorial series would be better than a template. A template is better for something that doesn't require a lot of customization. Something that is fairly standardized already.

You could try producing a PHP template for a web comic.

Indie is actually easy to define. Indie is short for "independent." If your studio is owned by, or beholden to, a major publisher, then you are not independent. Basically, if there is someone else pulling your strings and calling the shots on your game, then you are not independent.

Indie games are games produced apart from any outside interference. If you start a game company, then initially, you are indie. If your company goes public on the stock market, you are no longer indie. Why? Because you are now at the beck and call of your shareholders. If you accept funding from a major publisher, you are no longer indie.

It is really coming. And not just the Steam client but the Source engine as well. Color me impressed.

What is the real signficance of this announcement? It is a clear sign that Valve intends to take Mac gaming more seriously than Apple does. Apple has been dragging their feet for years on supporting game development for their platform. They didn't intentionally support games for the iPhone, that was largely the work of interested third-party developers. And they've never really supported game development for their desktop and laptop systems. With a digital distribution system as popular and widespread as iTunes, you would think they would have taken advantage of this potential market. Instead, Valve is finally stepping in and picking up the slack.

I, for one, am very excited about this development. Steam has become one of the best places for developers to digitally distribute their wares. Having another major hardware platform open to them is a boon. I had planned for my next game to target Steam for distribution. This will open up millions more potential customers.

Sorry guys. I wanted to go last night, but I was too tired...too tired. I'm just not used to the conference scene, been a bit of an eye-opener. If there are any other get togethers planned I will probably be up for them.

I'm actually typing this from the atendee lounge. My first day here was exhausting, but informative. Spent most of it browsing the show floor. Got to get a quick interview over at the Steam booth. (Valve) I also got to sit in on their Steamworks presentation.

This is the first major convention I've been to, so I don't have any point of refernce. But in my estimation, the swag has been pretty good. The GameDev booth was small, but they are handing out shot glasses with the GameDev logo on it. If anyone is in the vicinity of the IGF booth, make sure you grab some of the Meat Boy swag, it is priceless.

This many people in one place is a bit overwhelming for me. I didn't bother going to any parties last night. Might try to hit up some get togethers tonight though.

As of now, I don't think there is any formal confirmation. So its still just rumor and speculation. Of course, they have been teasing the hell out of it, so SOMETHING is definitely in the works.

A Mac-specific steam client is the most obvious hypothesis. This would require the least expense on Valve's part, with the greatest potential return on investment. A mac-specific steam client/store just makes good business sense. Especially considering how badly that Apple themselves have dropped the ball on supporting game development for their software platform.

A Mac port of the Source engine would be welcome, but it far less likely. It is well within the realm of possibility, the Source engine has proven surprisingly flexible. And it would certainly be a good idea, since porting it over would allow them to also port over a healthy percentage of Valve's core catalog.

As a small indie developer working on a game using Unity, this would be great for me. I was planning on targetting Steam for distribution anyway. If this turns out to be a reality, it will be easy for me to distribute my game on the PC and Mac.

Yeah, I'd be down for this. I love me some doodling. I also love me some Denny's. (breakfast for dinner, yeah!) I am tempted to bring along a laptop and my Hanvon drawing pad.

I'll be coming in early Thursday morning. Cutting it a bit close, but I should be there in time for the IGF.

Reason 1: Voice acting is expensive. Your average game designer isn't going to have the kind of voice or speaking quality that makes for good voice work. Voice acting also requires accomplished acting skill. To get decent voice acting, you usually have to hire someone. Ideally, you would hire actors, and also hire a director to get the best performance out of those actors. All of this costs a lot of money.

Reason 2: Voice acting is time-consuming. Voice acting adds a considerable extra step to game development. You have to record all of the audio, process it, and divide it up properly. All of that takes a considerable amount of time.

Reason 3: Lip-syncing can be a huge pain in the ass. Lip-syncing is one of the most difficult animation tasks that a game development team can tackle. Really good lip-syncing takes a long time and requires a lot of animation. Even the best automated systems for lip-syncing are still flawed.

In short, its usually just not worth it to an indie game developer.

The FPS genre has always been driven by technology. At the same time, the slight tangents that didn't focus on technology so much as they focused on content, are usually the experiments that we remember best.

Companies like ID and Epic have pushed game technology forward through their FPS titles. But a lot of their titles don't hold up very well to the ravages of time. But then take a look at Valve. Valve's R&D has always focused on features that most developers tend to marginalize. And Valve has always focused most strongly on the content within their games, and the experiences presented. Their FPS titles generally have much greater staying power.

Modern FPS titles benefit from the technology available to them, but that doesn't define their quality. Again, it is a matter of how the power is used.

The potential that games represent has improved dramatically. But the actual quality of a game is not dependent on the technology that runs it. All the potential in the world is worthless if it is not implemented correctly. This is a major issue that the game industry is dealing with. A lot of developers are focusing on the technology, and the quality of their titles is suffering for it. (games with great graphics, but no soul, fun-factor, or lasting appeal)

A retro game with personality will have lasting appeal. A modern game with much better production values, but no real personality or creative expression will be forgotten in the modern glut of releases. The technology behind games allows them to run, but the creativity that goes into their production is what allows them to endure.

I've begun working on my first independent title. Unfortunately, I have no screenshots yet, (VERY early in development) but I'm feeling pretty good about it. I'm just reserving a spot for my DevLog here, and intend to have something to actually show before the weekend.

Just by way of introduction, I'm going to be making a card game, I'm using Unity, and my targeted platforms are Steam and Facebook. (and possibly the iPhone and iPad)

isn't unity a slight overkill for a game that will be based primarily on text and interfaces?

isn't unity a 3d engine?

Not especially. Yes, Unity is a 3D engine. But it has 2D drawing capabilities, and a decently robust GUI scripting system. (that can be skinned as the user sees fit) You don't actually have to use 3D with it if you don't want to.

Also, there's the fact that it is a decently cross-platform engine with its own browser plug-in, as well as its own visual-editing toolset. Using an engine like Unity means that you don't need to re-invent the wheel.

I wouldn't worry about it. Starting small is good advice. But even a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. When people tell you to start small, they are referring to that one step. If you manage to get that one step under your belt, the next step doesn't seem so hard to take, or the next, or the next... If you start your journey trying to leap-frog twenty to thirty steps at a time, you are going to get tired really quickly.

Game development can be an exhaustive discipline. There is a lot you have to know, and its quite rare for anyone to fully understand everything that goes into a single game. Starting small also gives you a project with a scope you can grasp, and can tackle on your own.

Besides, most of the very best games start small. Refining a good core design principle, and then adding various permutations on it, is a proven approach to game design.

You might consider just using Unity. I'm going through their UI-related tutorials right now, and it seems that they have a pretty flexible scripting system for their interface. I also know that you can completely re-skin their interface elements however you please.