Here's the thing about creative and successful people;
Most people that create THINGS tend to be a bit broken. Whether it be games, or works of fiction, or something as simple as shitty youtube videos, most of these people are creating that thing to try to fill a void in their soul/mind/heart.
Creative people often create because their body/mind says "DO THIS AND SEEK APPROVAL" and when we get that little bit of approval... a few views, a few downloads, a few positive reviews... it feels great.
So we create more, to try to fill that void, to try to shut it entirely. You create and create and create.
I think what all successful creators eventually discover is that you can never fill that void, it is an unending chasm and even if you create something great that the world loves, you'll never stop feeling the need to create. You'll still seek other's approval even when you've grown to find it far less rewarding as it once was.
Basically, any successful creation is met with guesswork as to why this beloved thing you have made does not make you feel whole.
I think that might very well be true for
some artists, but definitely not all.
All people struggle with the balance between meaning, approval, and the satisfaction of accomplishing things. All people start out with the traits needed to create art or build things. One of the big distinctions that separates people out into "creatives" and "non-creatives" (a distinction I don't agree really exists), is the reality of surviving in a competitive capitalist society. If everyone had the ability to get paid to be creative, they would do just that. That's why a huge number of people that see someone doing that, yet still complaining about it, see that as a very low priority problem. A great many professions don't get any real acknowledgement at all, let alone fame, or extensive money (let alone enough acknowledgement that someone actually becomes "addicted" to it). All these people still are creative though, which is why they like playing games, watching movies, or reading books. If everyone wasn't inherently capable of creativity, no one would ever support professional artists. The distinction isn't psychological, it's more of a matter of economics, or art education / training access.
Also, I don't think all artists create things to seek approval. Most of the best ones couldn't care less about approval, and just create art for themselves. That's the best way to produce truly original art anyway. A lot of the best artists weren't ever famous until after they died.
And honestly, I don't think all artists are "broken" people either. That's just a huge generalization that fits for a small number of people. Being in a profession that allows you to express yourself is more healthy than most professions, not less. Is the career accountant not broken inside ever? What about the hospice nurse whose job it is to watch people die? Is she not battling emotions of worth and meaning inside, just because she's not making youtube videos?
I don't think there's much lack of empathy in this thread, because I think everyone knows how it would be like if their career let them express themselves, while rewarding them with fame and money. It would be massively better than their current career in most cases. What you're not seeing though, is much sympathy. And that's because this guy is in a much better position than most of the people reading this thread.
"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation," or so the saying goes. It's not a trait only artists feel. Artists are only ever recognized, because all people can identify with creative expressions of innately human experiences.
And why you throw "successful" people into this, I have no idea. They're more broken then unsuccessful people? What?