Although I understand this point of view, I respectfully disagree with the underlying argument . History has shown many examples of artistic work being changed in light of consumer feedback. Shakespeare wrote an additional play based on the character of Falstaff simply because audiences were so displeased with this character's exclusion from "Henry V". Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, due to fan reaction, brought back Sherlock Holmes even after writing his death into one story. Movies are regularly edited and re-edited due to feedback from test audiences. Very often, television shows survive or perish on the basis of how they respond to fan feedback (see Andrejevic's "Watching Television without Pity" piece). To make the case that video games are unique in this, or that other forms of media don't have to contend with fan reaction affecting the final artistic product flies in the face of these historical examples. (See Banks' piece on Auran Games and Fury--a very telling example of how ignoring the fans can sink a game and a company.)

Plus, this aforementioned argument also discounts the co-creative aspects that have been inherent in the video gaming industry for many years. With fan mods and forum feedback (such as this particular forum), we have all become both producers and consumers. It's interesting that Mr. Sinclair also fails to mention games such as Counter-Strike, which was purely a case of fans seeking a multiplayer version of Half-Life, or Little Big Planet, which not only accepts user creations, it actively encourages them.

We live in a configurable culture. It's time to remember the 'mass' part of mass media and to understand that fans are an inherent part of the dynamic in this model. When you ignore the fans, you do so at your own peril, whether you feel you are keeping true to your artistic integrity or not.