[dmingod666]

The problem is not about free distribution of knowledge or not.

The problem is, in compensation of the people involved in doing the work.

For example if someone sponsored content 'x' and made it free to the public it would be fine to copy it around. Think govt funded research. This has its own problems. The people that commission these works and the general public may not share the same tastes.

The risks of selling to a patron and selling to a yet unknown audience are vastly different. This is why the compensation varies wildly between the two. Its possible that one game may take enormous resources and then not give back any returns resulting in a loss and another one makes massive profits.

The positive ones cover up for the failing ones. If you only look at the positive ones it's easy to be dismissive and say they are getting compensated undeservedly. In the broader picture it is the massive successes that allow for variety in the market place, it is an essential mechanism. If you cap off the upper limits of getting paid, people will be unwilling to make newer / different types of things. The market is essentially funding innovation, variety and a buffer for failures - it serves as a direction mechanism for knowing what people want.

Knowing what to make that people will buy is a very hard and expensive problem to answer. People that can answer it correctly get paid a lot of money deservedly.