Taking The Videogame Market To The Next Level

Thanks to EvilAvatar for pointing out this article about the rise in popularity of games over at Creative Planet's Videography site. Amidst interesting figures about the ascent of games compared to movies, the author points out that, in 2001, the IDSA was expecting almost 17 billion dollars in videogame sales for 2003, when the total is unlikely to be anywhere near that. Is the games industry over-reaching, or are heady movie-surpassing revenue goals in sight?

Comments

Unfair comparisons

[MongoMike]

Comparisons about the games industry catching up to the movie industry in sales are tossed about all the time.

Truth of the matter is that games sales match the box office receipts of movies. But that doesn't take into DVD and VHS sales, account rentals, pay per view, TV showings, etc.

And the games totals include the hardware used to play games (consoles, not PCs).

When you compare apples to apples, there is no comparison. And there likely won't be for quite a few years yet.

Re:Unfair comparisons

[der_joachim]

I do not think that the comparison of video games and other entertainment is very unfair. The article stated that other forms of electronic entertainment are either barely playing even or even declining, while video games are on the rise. IMHO, that is quite an interesting point. Apparently, the game industry is the only form of entertainment, which is actually gaining in popularity. In this time of economic decline, that is no small feat.

der Joachim

Laziness versus EXTREME laziness

[Babbster]

The advantage that movies, television, etc. have is that they are NON-interactive forms of entertainment. Don't look at me like that, I did indeed say it was an advantage.

When the "average" US citizen (I won't pretend to speak for anybody else - I'm reaching as it is) gets home after work, the first thing s/he wants to do is sit down and relax. The best form of entertainment to go along with that is television, since it requires no effort beyond finding the right program.

When going out with others, movies are a good choice because everyone shares the same experience (barring big hairdos, hats or proximity to that jerk with the cell phone) and, like television, the movie comes to you and you need do nothing but watch. This is particularly true with relatively mindless fare that doesn't even require a lot of thought to appreciate - note the recent success of movies based on comic books.

Video games, on the other hand, require some effort to enjoy. Sometimes, they might require the development of a particular gaming skill set (platform jumping, fighting combos, etc.). They are not, therefore, the best choice for relaxation for most people. I enjoy video games quite a lot (and have for years) yet I still have periods where games will stress me out, leaving me far more open to watching television, going to a movie, etc. where I will simply sit down and let the entertainment come to me.

It's my conclusion that movies and television will ALWAYS combine to be more popular forms of entertainment - thus making more money - than video games for the simple fact that they're more conducive to both physical and mental relaxation...Anyone with calluses on their thumbs and broken controllers from being thrown across the room should surely agree. :)

Re:Laziness versus EXTREME laziness

[Babbster]

I understand that game sales beat movie box office receipts but that's not surprising at all. A new game will cost $40-50 while watching a new movie in the theater costs $5-12 (depending on location and time of day). Four or more movie tickets would have to be purchased to match the price of one new game, and most people don't go to the movies THAT often anymore. Add into that the fact that the experience of going to a theater and watching a movie is FAR removed from that of playing a video game and the apples/oranges problem becomes more evident.

The comparison of box office receipts and video game sales is a meaningless statistic. It's also why I didn't restrict myself to just talking about movies. Television also generates more revenue every year than movies in the theater but most people don't talk about that anymore because it's self-evident and the reason is obvious - there are always going to be more people sitting at home and watching television than there are going to the movies OR playing video games. My argument was simply that it will continue in that fashion for the forseeable future.

Trying to relate the dollar value of video game sales to their mass market appeal even if you don't compare it to anything is misleading, too. For example, in the past year I've bought 30-40 video games, most for $50 a piece. That means that alone I've generated $1,500 or more in video game sales by myself. I'm clearly in the minority, even among gamers, but it gives you an idea of how few people it takes to build up video game numbers.

Re:Possible

[James Lewis]

WRONG. There will always be a place for mediums in which the creator has total control over the way you experience it.