"Like I said before, it's a supply and demand thing. There is a huge supply of kids who want to make video games, and not enough employers for them all."
But is the demand for employees at game companies static? One could imagine, and I am hardly an expert, but one could imagine that as big games become bigger and bigger, indie games see more recognition among the 'mainsteam' and the industry grows in general, the number of people they employ will rise. It will always be more competitive to get into these companies compared to some other unsexy technical thing, but I think the games space is blowing up (economically and culturally) and the schools and more jobs are (will be?) a result of that. Same with the kids who want to go into the industry. The idea that there is necessarily a fundamental lack of opportunities for those who want to work in the industry doesn't feel right to me; I guess the big problem will be making a living doing it.
While I agree with many of your thoughts on distribution losing its value, as someone in book publishing, I would argue that aggregation, though not in the exact same sense in which you use it, has always been and continues to be the special, important, and valuable product that publishers provide.
A lot of your insights make a tremendous amount of sense from the writer's/journalist's perspective, as in, 'what can I get out of my publisher, since I can distribute my content so easily... only their marketing team is valuable to me now, and they're not tremendously good at their jobs anyway.'
I think a good objection to raise to that way of looking at the situation is that we should really be considering the value of publishers from the consumer's perspective.
'The future of publishing' discussions are driven not only by some weird desire for the status quo (which can be found in any industry) but, in my experience, also by the huge fear that we will be living in a world in which there are no gatekeepers. The stodgy traditional industry chugs on because it serves as a quality stamp. I don't mean to just cite anecdotal experience but it's pretty clear to me that the majority of self-published 'journalism' is simply not up to the level of say, The Economist, and I know that the Amazon self-published scene is full of both unreadable, horribly formatted, typo-heavy books and straight up nutjobs, which doesn't happen too often in the big six. Another way of saying this, if I haven't gotten the point across, is that publishers DO find journalists and manage logistics for journalists. They also give them a soapbox that has a big stamp on it that reads, 'trust us, she's a great writer. All this stuff is true.' So yes, I do fear a world in which anyone can become a 'journalist.'