Microsoft has just recently released an officially supported Unity extension which supports debugging.
https://code.visualstudio.com/...
You need to update to latest everything to get the relevant underlying systems that support it, which brings other challenges, but it does work.

I think this is a great answer. I love what I do, and I love where I work, but I know folks younger and dumber than me who are positively coining it in working in the finance sector, for example. If I were tempted more by the cash, it would be much harder to justify doing the job I do.

I can't speak for other companies, but I can speak from my personal experience.

I'm a team manager now, but I still do programming work occasionally. I'm in my late 30s. some of my team are 20s, some are 30s. A couple are over 40, a couple are fresh out of university.

Some of the folks who were older than me when I got into the industry are still working in games, and they are well into their forties now. Granted, they often are team leads or directors, but I think this is a consequence of the industry being very young and mostly populated by kids when it first grew out of the bedroom scene 30 years ago.

Of my last five hires, one of them was over 40.

I do find it interesting that the games industry has fewer older, luminary figures. If you look at the technical leads over at Pixar or Google for example, some of those guys are positively ancient (and I'd hire them in a second).

probably ;) If you'd like to enumerate their specific failures, I can give you yes/no answers.

I've been interviewing and hiring programmers for games companies for the last decade. I look for:

Programming skill, with C++ being the most relevant language (but obvious excellence in other languages is also hugely useful). Demos, contributions to open source, university projects, youtube videos of the results of your work are all good showcases. Having a website with linked examples (executable and source to look at) makes evaluating skill much easier while sifting CVs. We have hired folks recently with no C++ experience, but they had very strong demonstrable C# or Python experience.

Team fit - must be smart, get things done, friendly. People who are passionate about what they do, willing to work on whatever is most important to the team at the time (rather than "I only want to work on shaders", for example) and desperate to learn. I really, really want to hire people who want to do good work. I'm much less likely to hire people if they are not all three of the aforementioned criteria.

Education is a really simple bar for us to use these days, as many people do meet the above criteria. We normally expect at least a bachelor's first in a science. I've hired a few postdocs recently, they're all great guys. If you haven't got good math/physics results at A-level, I'm very unlikely to interview.

We obviously don't expect people to hit every point, but we are lucky enough to be pretty choosy.

I think this is the key thing that is missing from the originally stated problem.

the actual selection set before removing girls is:

girl (named), girl
girl, girl (named)
girl (named), boy
girl, boy (named)
boy (named), girl
boy, girl (named)
boy (named), boy
boy, boy (named)

and then we're saying "the named child is definitely a boy" which removes:

girl (named), girl
girl, girl (named)
girl (named), boy
boy, girl (named)

leaving the following four (equally likely) selections:

girl, boy (named)
boy (named), girl
boy (named), boy
boy, boy (named)

meaning the collapsed (boy, boy) option isn't a 1/3 probability at all, it's 1/2.

I've been making games professionally for close to 19 years. Much of the advice in previous posts is very important, so I'll summarize all the bad points first.

1. Your game concept is worthless to anyone but you. I've personally got 30 ideas for games that will most likely never see the light of day; some of which I honestly believe are better than the very best games out there right now. Without turning that idea into a playable demonstration, no-one will give you money for it.

2. You might think your idea is brilliant (and you could be right) but chances are once you turn it into an actual playable version, you'll more likely than not find flaws and issues with the design. I've never worked on a single game that plopped fully formed from design to execution, it just doesn't happen. Expect 90% of the effort of designing your game to happen after the first implementation is complete.

3. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of other people want to do exactly what you're suggesting (sell their idea for money). The people with the money to give you are publishers, and the vast majority of those explicitly will not even talk about your game design, just in case it comes close to a product in development. The last thing they want is to open themselves up to being sued because your idea was remotely similar to a game they intend to ship next year.

now the good stuff:

You can make games yourself, right now. Trust me - making (and playing) your own games is infinitely more satisfying than just talking about it or writing down half-baked ideas on a piece of paper. Do what the Narbacular Drop guys did, *make it*. If you don't know how - learn. Everything you need to learn is out there right now.

There's some really good frameworks for making games out there. look for Unreal Development Kit, Blender you already mentioned, and my personal suggestion for your best starting place would be Xbox 360 development using XNA. The benefits of making your game on a platform where it's easy for everyone else to look at the end results in the cold light of day are huge - plus for a small investment you get to play your game on a proper console gaming environment (big telly, etc). There's also mobile platforms - basically, if you care enough to try and are willing to invest your time and maybe a couple of hundred dollars, you can get started on making a product that will be good enough to get attention from people with serious money.

Rage against the machine are signed to Epic, whereas the X-Factor winners are signed to Syco. Both are owned by Sony, but really ... who cares? This campaign was never about the money, it was about doing something to stop the tediousness of X-Factor chart domination.

It was worth it all, just to hear someone swearing on Radio 5.

It's a game. it's not forcing, or even suggesting, that you should go out and perform this action for real.
Is this any more contentious than GTA ho-bouncing or pedestrian splatting?
It certainly makes me consider the moral aspects of performing those actions for real, but I highly doubt it will provoke me towards them (more likely it will make me less inclined to gun down civs at an airport in future).

Compared to the blood and gore of recent Hollywood fare like Saw, where's the problem?