Talk:Video game industry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Business and Economics Portal This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
B	rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Low	rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	CVG Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of Top priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: Baldur's Gate series Expand: New CVG Articles, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: List of F-Zero titles, Kya: Dark Lineage, Wii Remote, Dynasty Warriors 4, The Sims 2, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Kirby's Dream Land, Electronic sports, Fire Emblem, Dante (Devil May Cry), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Final Fantasy XII, Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit), Classes in World of Warcraft Cleanup: Age of Mythology, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Betrayal at Krondor, List of Nintendo trademarks Merge: Deletions / Essential articles / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

Contents 1 Lack of Citations 2 Money, money, money 3 See Also links 4 Indie not independant 5 Numbers with source, finally 6 Economics

[edit] Lack of Citations

Where do statistics like "Only the top 2% of games make a profit and the remaining 98% of games released lose money." come from? Statements like this seem outlandish to someone who isn't involved in the industry when they aren't directly cited using footnotes. Please provide sources.--Senseiireland 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The whole article needs citations. This is one horribly bad wikipedia entry. Where did all these categories came from? Who determined what's belong in this industry? Where did you get the statisitcs. I'm so tempted to delete the entire thing. Suredeath 22:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

there is too much unreferenced information. Since the citation needed links have been up forever yet no one has found any citations I say remove them as false. Jedi6-(need help?) 05:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove them all now. We can always bring them back if someone finds sources for them.--Senseiireland 04:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC) I can't belive how much of this article needs to go! I got rid of the entire first paragraph -- please, if you can cite that info, do because it's well-written aside from the lack of citations! The rest of the article needs citations too; I added only one 'needs citation' tag, but to be honest, there's a lot of unsourced info. I'll come back in a week. If things haven't improved, more will be gutted -- a shame, since this article reads fairly well. Unfortunately, we can't have a bunch of stats and claims that aren't backed up.--Senseiireland 04:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Practices" section mentions the treatment of various sections of the industry by others but should there not be some mention of how the industry has treated their consumers? I do not want to turn this into a personal gripe article but I seem to remember several abusive practices such as Activision releasing and promoting two different games (one much inferior to the other) as the same Spiderman video game and there has been a consistent pattern of system requirement fraud over at least a ten year period (even mentioning that the requirements have been controversial rather than - as I would say - fraudulent might be sufficient). It seems that this industry gets away with things that would not be considered legal in other industries. Was there not a Sony like scandal involving a small games company comprimising computers and using a misleading end user agreement with their copy protection software? Should these practices not be mentioned? Or perhaps dealt with in an article about the state of consumer protection in the entertainment industries? I can not cite info now but I will have a look. I remember BoingBoing.net covering the copy protection vandalism. Apple Rancher 22:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Money, money, money

In the overview someone cites and compares the revenues of the game and movie industry as fact. Can whoever wrote it please cite their sources?

I wrote it, but I have nothing to cite. The comments came from a keynote address, I think, at the GDC or E3. The speaker cited that the belief that the game industry makes more than Hollywood is a myth. People who push that statistic used dubious methods to garner it. For example, they used total movie ticket sales, but not DVD and videotape sales. They added PC and video game console sales, but not DVD player or VCR sales to the movie side. I think they even added in dubious game hardware, such as printers. So, evening out the data gathering methods, he got the data I added.

If I can find something online, I'll cite it. Otherwise, it'll have to stay un-cited. I agree that citing is better, but it just wasn't possible in this case. :-( — Frecklefoot | Talk July 5, 2005 19:58 (UTC)

While the movie industry is still bigger than the gaming industry, the $180 billion figure seems to be drawn from thin air. Though I couldn't find any direct confirmation of the $31 for the gaming industry, it seems to be close to accurate ( [http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=6942 numbers here say $35.3bn would be 5.3% growth, which comes out at about $33bn this year.) -Banned 14:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The money comparing seems off. The Hollywood 31 Billion number is cited in an artical as kindof a sidenote, with the main artical being about porn. It doesn't say if that is the US Number or worldwide, or some other scope. To make an accurate comparison (to the seven billion the game industry takes in in the US) you have to make sure that the 31 billion number is also for the US only... Also, It would be nice to put in industry growth.. i think i read somewhere that box office sales have been declining in recent years....

StarDolph 20:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually discovered that the comparison was erroneous. For example, it lumped in the sales of personal computers into the revenue for video games. But at the same time, it didn't add in sales of DVD players, for example. So the comparison was rigged to favor the industry. If it already hasn't been, I'll remove the statement until someone can find a verifiable source that doesn't use a rigged comparison. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that statement is now cited, but just from an article. It doesn't state where it got it's figures, so I can't disprove it. Leaving it for now unless someone can find where the article got it's info. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See Also links

I removed these two links from the "See also":

• Video game publisher
• Video game developer

They are already present in the article. I know that there has been some discussion on the Village Pump a while back about whether or not to have links in the See Also section that are already present in the article. I think the consensus was that if the article is very long it is okay to put the related links in the see also. This article is pretty short (currently), so I don't see a need for these links in the see also. Just MHO... &mash;Frecklefoot 18:42, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Removed stuff about Unix being developed for gaming (looks like rubbish to me, I checked the Unix article though). Mat-C 05:40, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the diligence, but its not rubbish. I found it in a technical interviewing guide (something like The Top Things You Should Know for a Technical Interview). It mentioned that and it piqued my interest, so I investigated and validated it. I don't know what they Unix article says, but I suspect Unix-philes would be upset to let it be known the origins of their OS was a game. :-) Anyway, putting the UNIX info back in. Thanks for expanding the other descriptions. —Frecklefoot 16:23, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

It is rubbish. The game served as an introduction to programming for the PDP-7. While it's obvious that unix has some of its roots in the game, saying that it was developed so that the programmers could play a game is much too strong of a statement. I've removed it. -Banned 14:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I've seen this claim around a number of places, and I don't think that source contradicts it. Perhaps the claim should be modified to 'the desire to get a game working was a motivation for writing Unix', or something like that. Google for 'Unix origin game' got me this. I don't know if this source (or its own citation for that bit of information) are considered useable here, so I'll leave it to you. I believe Ritchie also cited the importance of the desire to play Space Travel in connection to developing C in his talk to HOPL-II (the second History of Programmign Languages conference).--Apantomimehorse 08:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding the source you provided for the information. Thx. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indie not independant

changed independent to indie developer. The two definitions of the term are completely different. Independent refers to someone that has "no formal relationship with a publisher", but indie refers to small teams, low budgets, and a dislike for publishers. It's a small difference, but something I'm particular about, and so are other developers.

And it sounds cool too, right? --66.45.139.80 01:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

While you may like to differentiate these terms with your friends and fellows, this is original research. You will need to cite a one the typically accepted publications to back up this assertion. - me

[edit] Numbers with source, finally

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70864-0.html?tw=wn_technology_8 I'm too lazy to write. Suredeath 00:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Numbers from the industry it self. http://www.theesa.com/archives/files/Essential%20Facts%202006.pdf It's interresting to see that ESA, produced different numbers (lower) in their annual report. ESA is also behind this new research. Be aware that this paper is biased. The data was gathered from a population who possesed a game device, but the conclusions are drawn uppon the whole us population. --212.242.209.208 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Finally i found the paper which is referenced in the article by Suredeath. http://www.theesa.com/archives/files/2006%20WHITE%20PAPER%20FINAL.pdf --212.242.209.208 09:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The ESA is the association for the US, it's not worldwide. For numbers, you can better look at gamasutra.com, one of the world's biggest websites for professionals in the video- and computer game industry.[mecanita]

[edit] Economics

The statements from: " Early on, development costs were minimal, and video games could be quite profitable. Games developed by a single programmer, or by a small team of programmers and artists, could sell hundreds of thousands of copies each. ...

to

... Now budgets can easily reach millions of dollars, even if middleware and pre-built game engines are used. Most professional games require one to three years to develop, further increasing the strain on budgets. " is completely untrue.

This line of thinking has been stated over and over, ever since computer games were made available for home computers. Computer games can still be made by small teams or individuals, with low costs and still generate a substantial profit; all without ever going to a large publisher. This even applies to Massive Multi-player Online games. RuneScape and Id Software are classic examples of debunking this Economic section in the article. The Economic Section is going to need to be redone and also geared with a positive outlook and the future trends of independant developer teams providing successful titles at low costs. --MrPatrick 16:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Providing some counter-examples doesn't make it untrue. Many more financially successful games costs millions of dollars to develop than not. These are the ones that go on to sell into the thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands.

Id did produce Wolfenstein 3D and Doom independently on a small budget. But that is in the past. Their latest engine, Doom 3, was developed in a more traditional manner, costing much more than their earlier endevours.

I have yet to see a contemporary indie producing a game as successful as a large-scale, non-indie game. Games cost a lot to produce now, that's all there is to it. If you're a Renaissance Man and can do all the art, coding and sound F/X yourself, (or can get friends to it for free) more power to you. But even so, that would not be the norm, which this article describes.

Some casual game companies have had some success, but they don't even approach the success of the year's highest selling games.

I support the inclusion of rosier material and counter-examples, but nothing that is not true. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

" Many more financially successful games costs millions of dollars to develop than not. These are the ones that go on to sell into the thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands. " And many well-financed games have bombed more than not. Titles such as Myst and Deer Hunter which were low cost games have had exceedingly high sales. For a game to earn a large profit, a large budget is not required (though it helps). With web distribution becoming an acceptable method, the power of publishers and retailers are diminishing. (Ref: Deconstruction of the Music Industry).

I stand by the example of Id Software, it is a proven business case study. Yes it is in the past as all case-studies are; however, studying past case-studies allows individuals to exploit the future.

Runscape is " a contemporary indie [that has produced] a game as successful as a large-scale, non-indie game. " $5/month for 850,000 subscribers, plus millions of accounts subjected to advertisement, I would say proves my point. Jagex has outperformed other large scale professional companies.

" Games cost a lot to produce now, that's all there is to it. " This is only true for the growing console gaming market. For PC's, middleware and engine platforms are now at affordable prices, some offer deferred payments or royalty fees only, such as Multiverse. The PC gaming market is facing Deconstruction, while the growing console market is resistant. --MrPatrick 17:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me first backup and say I am not trying to be argumentative, and I'm sorry if my first response seemed a bit overheated. I welcome any discussion about this and any other article. I'm glad you're open to discussion before making large changes.

Now, let me address each of your points individually:

"And many well-financed games have bombed more than not."

Absolutely! As a matter of fact, more titles bomb than make a profit. It's a very risky business to be sure! I never meant to imply otherwise.

"Titles such as Myst and Deer Hunter which were low cost games have had exceedingly high sales."

Almost. Myst did have very high sales (second highest grossing computer game of all time), but it wasn't especially cheap to make. They had to pre-render the environments (each screen), which wasn't cheap or commonplace then (it's still not cheap, but more commonplace). Deer Hunter was a cheap title to produce (but it was also developed by a professional video game developer, not by an indie), but it had high sales for what it was produced for (in dollars). They were lucky and tapped a previously ignored segment of the market (hunters). It didn't sell well among regular, non-hunting gamers. But it was big with hunters (or those interested in hunting, I guess).

"For a game to earn a large profit, a large budget is not required (though it helps)."

This is true (Bejeweled and RuneScape as you mentioned), but these are few and far between. They are counter-examples, not the norm. There are tons of hobbyist and indie games released on the market every month, but most don't make a profit. A game that is hyped months in advance has a better chance of making it big than a game from an indie with little or no marketing money. Yes, many of these over-hyped games bomb, but they're pushed in gamer's faces and they actually look forward to them being released. For a current example, look at The Sims 2: Pets. It's been hyped for months now and gamers are anxiously awaiting its release. It's the same with many other games. Some indie games may breakout without the huge marketing dollars, but, again, they are counter-examples, not something we should even hint are the norm.

"With web distribution becoming an acceptable method, the power of publishers and retailers are diminishing. (Ref: Deconstruction of the Music Industry)."

Web distribution is becomming more commonplace, but it hasn't killed the retail market (yet). It has had a bigger impact on the music market (but downloadable games don't cost $1.00 each). Even so, more high-profile games that are released online have a better chance of making it big than small, homebrew games.

However, games distributed online are much cheaper for the developers (indie or non-) and result in larger profits. This could be part of the "rosier" stuff you wanted to add. But they haven't yet supplanted the traditional retailers.

"I stand by the example of Id Software, it is a proven business case study. Yes it is in the past as all case-studies are; however, studying past case-studies allows individuals to exploit the future."

But the point is that even id (yes, it is "id" with a small "i") themselves can't produce games on the cheap anymore. They did many years ago, but now they have to pay artists to produce the huge number of models their latest games use and they have a larger pool of programmers, not just John Carmack slamming away at a keyboard. It made it big when the market was different, when the PC was scorned as a serious game machine.

"Runscape is " a contemporary indie [that has produced] a game as successful as a large-scale, non-indie game. " $5/month for 850,000 subscribers, plus millions of accounts subjected to advertisement, I would say proves my point. Jagex has outperformed other large scale professional companies."

Okay, I admit I was wrong on this one. But again, this is an exception, and I don't think we want to say it is anything but. As a matter of fact, I think it gives Jagex more credit by pointing out they bucked the prevailing trend.

" Games cost a lot to produce now, that's all there is to it. " This is only true for the growing console gaming market. For PC's, middleware and engine platforms are now at affordable prices, some offer deferred payments or royalty fees only, such as Multiverse. The PC gaming market is facing Deconstruction, while the growing console market is resistant."

This misses the point. PC games are really the only ones that hobbyists can produce. I wouldn't say the console market is "resistant"—it is simply impossible to produce a console game without a console development system, not a cheap (or publicly available) piece of hardware (actually, an entire setup. And, actually, Microsoft has announced hobbyist development systems for the Xbox 360, though they are strictly for tinkering and not the same as full-blown development systems).

Just because cheap middleware and engines are available now doesn't mean that any (or, at least, many) games released by hobbyists/indies are going to be successful. Availability of tools doesn't always translate into success. Plus, those are benefits only on the programming side. Most games these days require a hefty volume of high-quality art to make a splash. And, any way you slice it, art is time-consuming and expensive to produce. Again, there are counter-examples, but they are not the norm. If they were the norm, we'd have a very different industry than we have now.

So, I'm not against including information about indies making it big, but we have to make it clear that they are the exception and not the norm. Otherwise, it'd be like saying most young actresses who go to Hollywood make it big after their first audition. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Though middleware - especially 3D engines- aren't exactly cheap with professional 3D engines costing $ 300,000 + $ 50,000 per seat. Also, publishers have much power these days and that's not going to change because more and more publishers are going to sell their products online.

Another exception is Cornered Rat Software, developer of Battleground Europe.(The former World War Two Online) So the norm is: Indies aren't sucessfull generally.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mecanita (talk • contribs).

Actually, there are some high-quality 3D engines available for cheap (Torque, for example). But high-quality games still are expensive to produce, even with the cheap game engines. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)