Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Video Games Now Account For More Than Half of UK Entertainment Market (independent.co.uk)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

The video games sector now accounts for more than half of the entertainment market in UK, according to new figures. From a report: The Entertainment Retailers Association (ERA) said the gaming market's value rose to $4.85bn, more than double what it was worth in 2007. It now makes gaming a larger market than video and music combined for the first time. The figures show three games -- Fifa 19, Red Dead Redemption 2 and Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 -- each sold more than one million physical units in the UK across games consoles during 2018. ERA chief executive Kim Bayley said: "The games industry has been incredibly effective in taking advantage of the potential of digital technology to offer new and compelling forms of entertainment. Despite being the youngest of our three sectors, it is now by far the biggest."

36 of 49 comments (clear)

  1. Reasons by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    I would say it's because TV and music are all getting very samey and a bit shitty but games are kinda doing that too. I'm pretty sure it's the loot boxes.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    1. Re:Reasons by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      ...games are kinda doing that too.

      You think?
      FIFA 19 (35th game in the series)
      Red Dead Redemption 2 (2nd game in the series, but since it's basically "Grand Theft Auto on a horse" you could almost say it's the 17th GTA game)
      Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 (15th game in the series)

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Reasons by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Difference is, there's plenty of small AA/A class studios(Paradox, CDProjekt, 4A, Larian) out there to pick from, who all have passed the bar the AAA studios once had. And unlike say TV or movies, there hasn't been a mass convergence of video game companies, especially since anyone with time and patience can sit down learn unity or unreal and start working on a game with provided assets. Hell there's a booming business in games just surrounding RPGMaker.

      The funny thing that you mentioned with FIFA 19, RDR2, and CoD is that the number of AAA studios has declined because the profitability has dried up over the last decade, and people are buying fewer titles. It also hasn't helped those AAA studios that they've gone down the path of attacking their audience, or shoveling social justice, politically correct crap, or censoring their games. See the mass drop-off in western companies that did localization for Japanese and Korean games, and the studios moving them either in-house, or in-country for localization. Fire Emblem is a good example of the absolute gutting of both core content and features to avoid 'offending' loud mouthed SJW's.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Reasons by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      The biggest difference is highlighted by this story. As the market expanded and more people played computer games, the actual computer gamer, the one everyone actually thinks of, become the minority market and the rube noobs became the majority market. This hugely altered the nature of games. From games that had to win over players, to games that simply had to con players, where advertising counted more than game code ie rake in as much money as fast as you can until the rubes wise up and stop buying, then you release the next reskinned game.

      Really crappy stuff happens, like Paradox screwing with the base game of stellaris basically breaking as it conquest game on an update to force it into an economic game, in order to sell an overpriced poorly coded economic based DLC, really scummy stuff. Or shoving in mircotransations post release as in EA. Gamers wont put up with this shite but the rube noobs will and they will also pay to win, for them cheating is winning, they don't care.

      Gamers of course loathe pay to win because basically the companies make the game as grindingly boring as possible so that you will pay to not play it, insane as that is because of course you could simply not play the game at all for free, why pay to play and then pay more to not play, the idea is totally insane, ahh, the psychopaths in the gaming industry, they know their rube noob market well.

      By the why, when they talk about whales buying pay to win microtransactions, they are not talking about the size of their wallet but the size of their ego, their ego forces them to buy pay to win because they can not accept losing but are super comfortable with cheating, as long as they are doing the cheating and not being cheated. For gamers cheating to win is lame and pointless, as is being a target for legally licensed cheats and as for the insanity of buying a game and paying more to not play it, well that is plain fucking stupid and only for the rube noobs (beware psycho game execs the rubes will simply stop playing computer games or just buy very few games and boom there goes you market and they are firing your ass) and I do have a mobile phone but I never play games on it (I also play path of exile instead of diablo).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:Reasons by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Red Dead Redemption 2 (2nd game in the series, but since it's basically "Grand Theft Auto on a horse" you could almost say it's the 17th GTA game)

      Red Dead 2 is actually the third in the series. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      These days though I basically pour my time into elite and pubg and get way more entertainment than any film or tv show I know of.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  2. The reality is... by blahplusplus · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ... of course it is, the reality is when you put microtransactions and gambling mechanics inside games.

    One of the reasons it's grown so much is because the game playing masses on both PC and phones is fucking tech illiterate. Steam, mmo's, mobile gambling/gacha games could only exist in a world where the average gamer is bum fuck moron.

    Watching RPG's gettting rebranded MMO's in the 90's to stick drm server lock into them and charge a subscription was annoying, the fact that the public fell all over themselves to pay money for software they didn't own or control incentivized the entire industry to code games in a way that the public never controls the game. Watching Team fortress 2 going from paid product to f2p microtransaction ridden game was pretty much the death knell for game ownership. Now that even fucking starcraft 2 is in on it.

    Sad place where PC gaming and software ownership (aka windows 10 as a service we definitely are in an idiocracy) ended up due to the masses getting internet.

    1. Re:The reality is... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Watching RPG's gettting rebranded MMO's in the 90's to stick drm server lock into them and charge a subscription was annoying,

      Which is exactly why I avoided the MMOs and stuck with the games that weren't (and still do).

      the fact that the public fell all over themselves to pay money for software they didn't own or control incentivized the entire industry to code games in a way that the public never controls the game. Watching Team fortress 2 going from paid product to f2p microtransaction ridden game was pretty much the death knell for game ownership. Now that even fucking starcraft 2 is in on it.

      Sad place where PC gaming and software ownership (aka windows 10 as a service we definitely are in an idiocracy) ended up due to the masses getting internet.

      And, I've resisted that too. I do use steam now because there is very little choice- so I guess I don't own my games- but I held out as long as I could until there really wasn't any games left that you didn't need steam for. I still won't buy any denuvo games because I don't want to have to be online to play (I don't have the option to be online all the time- my ISP is spectrum so I only have internet connection about 80% of the time).

      Too this day- I have never bought any "in app purchase". I've bought a couple of DLCs- but only when the cost seemed justified- where the product actually changed the game play and was a significant amount of work involved.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:The reality is... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not as bleak as you put it. First of all, RPGs still exist, despite MMOs. Mostly because, despite the name, they're two very different kinds of games. Yes, you play a character in both of them. But that's where the similarities end. In a single player RPG, your exploits matter. The world can be shaped by your deeds and misdeeds, something that is completely impossible in an MMO. If what you did mattered in the world there, the next player couldn't experience the same game. If in your RPG you slayed the dragon of eternal destruction and got that sword of ultimate awesomeness, the dragon is dead and the sword is claimed, and townspeople will sing praises for you. In an MMO, the dragon respawns a few minutes later and drops another ultimate sword. And nobody talks about it because MMO worlds are static. They cannot change based on the actions of a single person because, well, how should anyone else play them if they did?

      Instead it's mostly a matter of cooperative collection of loot.

      But that aside, microtransactions have become a pest in games, but only because we let them. There is actually a very, very simple way to not participate in them: Don't buy games that have them. Yes, believe it or not, such games do exist.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:The reality is... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      RPG is role-playing game, such as pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons, where, in a limited sense, players act out the sensibilities of their characters. It's questionable if this has any meaning at all in a single-player game.

      MMOs inherit from text MUDs, which were live action multiplayer fantasy worlds. You can also roleplay in these, and many online games have RP severs to attempt to gather those who want this additional flourish.

      What you call roleplaying is the persistent world concept, where actions have consequences out in the world. Almost no MMOs do this. If you see a monster respawn, that ain't it. And no, changing the world with each major update or expansion pack doesn't count in this sense.

      It will get here eventually, but requires an end to the "theme park" model of MMORPGs with species and animals that grow and spread naturally, such that one might encroach on a city and be fought back.

      People have been simulating that for decades, but good luck. Current design is idiotic AI and static spwen points.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:The reality is... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      RPG is role-playing game, such as pen and paper Dungeons and Dragons, where, in a limited sense, players act out the sensibilities of their characters. It's questionable if this has any meaning at all in a single-player game.

      It has the same amount of meaning as the amount of effort spent providing options with consequences. For all their many failings, Bethesda games tend to have a decent handle on this. Some parts of the game have to happen, others are optional, and some are unavailable depending on who you've allied yourself with or what missions you've completed. Actions with consequences. And you have a limited set of options which are based on your character's characteristics.

      What you call roleplaying is the persistent world concept, where actions have consequences out in the world. Almost no MMOs do this. If you see a monster respawn, that ain't it.

      When you play paper RPGs, you're probably either going to get random encounters off a table, or the GM will simply assign you encounters based on whim. Fighting respawned monsters is no more ridiculous.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:The reality is... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      MMOs almost always have some sort of extended 'grind' that you don't see in single player games. The rationale here being that if you finish up all the tasks in the MMO and then there's nothing left to do then you might unsubscribe. To prevent that loss of customer these games will have you earn more reputation with factions, run multiple variants of the same instance to get slightly better gear, play the festival events for a few weeks to earn a goodie or two, and so forth. For a single player RPG you play, get to the end, then play/buy a new game, and so the mechanics are very different.

      One aspect that stuck out for me is that many MMOs have a very complicated set of player stats and attributes. This means it's harder to get geared up and optimized. Single player computer RPGs on the other hand tend to have gone the route of simplifying attributes - ie compare Morrowind to Skyrim.

    6. Re:The reality is... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Not gonna happen. No chance in hell. Simply due to the nature of MMOs.

      Never noticed how certain places are brimming with activity while others are deserted? And how this shifts time and again with every update, expansion, DLC and content creation? Naturally spreading fauna and flora would pretty much become a problem right out the door, with "nature" overgrowing places that used to be well populated when the majority of players move on. Now, one could say "ok, then the old gathering place becomes a lost city". Ok, and where should new players go and level? There is a reason why places are populated in MMOs, and usually the main reason is that such a place is a hub where you can easily and quickly reach all the interesting places you have to go to. Having such a place is crucial for leveling quickly, something that new players MUST do if you want to balance the loss of players that quit with new blood. You have to give these people a way to reach level cap in a reasonable time and participate in endgame content or they will lose interest. Nobody wants to be behind forever.

      Letting "nature" take over is a horrible idea. At least if you want your MMO to survive.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:The reality is... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      MMOs used to have even more complicated systems of stats and attributes in the old days (AO anyone?). With most contemporary MMOs, it boils down to 3-4 stats per class (yes, there are like 10 but every class only really uses 3-4 of them). And for those that don't want to do the math, there's usually plenty of guides along the lines of "get this sword from that mob in this dungeon, get that shield from that boss in that dungeon...", so in the end it ain't that difficult either.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Re:brits by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Interesting

    mindless zombies

    Is someone who plays a game more of a "mindless zombie" than someone who watches TV?

    I'm not saying either activity is probably very healthy if overdone- but surely, playing games where you think and interact is less "mindless zombie" than watching TV where you don't interact at all.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  4. More than TV? by Larry+Lightbulb · · Score: 1

    So TV, film, music, and everything else is less than the 50 of the "entertainment market" (whatever that may be)? I would have thought the millions who watch TV programs outnumber the gamers, not the other way around.

    1. Re:More than TV? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      We're talking market share, not number of people using it. Most people watching TV do so without paying anything but the ridiculous "TV ownership fee". While gamers tend to spend quite a few quid on games every year.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:More than TV? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      So TV, film, music, and everything else is less than the 50 of the "entertainment market" (whatever that may be)? I would have thought the millions who watch TV programs outnumber the gamers, not the other way around.

      Probably make more money off each gamer though.

  5. Same for the US, sort of by turp182 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The numbers are bigger, but that makes sense given populations.

    2017 (in USD):
    * Movie box office - $11 billion
    * The gotcha, home viewing (cable and Netflix for example) - $107 billion
    * Music - $18.3 billion
    * Books, digital and physical (surprising) - $37 billion
    * Video Games - $23 billion

    So video games beat out the big screen and music in the US. I believe this has been the case for at least a few years.

    https://www.selectusa.gov/medi...

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
    1. Re:Same for the US, sort of by Larry+Lightbulb · · Score: 1

      But not really half of the entertainment market.

    2. Re:Same for the US, sort of by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      But not really half of the entertainment market.

      It's probably complicated to calculate and the statistic at the top of this thread might be skewed. For example:

      What if your cellphone bill includes a music streaming service? You're paying for phone service- not music (although clearly a cut of your bill is going to entertainment); I know a lot of services in Europe include music streaming as part of the package- if the phone bill isn't included as part of the entertainment package the statistic is flawed.

      You could also say what of Amazon Prime? If you get most of your TV watching from Amazon Prime the statistic at the top probably isn't counting you for spending any money on entertainment via TV. Clearly, part of Amazon's budget from prime goes to funding TV though.

      In America, that $107 billion on cable is higher than it would be in the UK. Most of America is covered by expensive monopolistic cable companies- your bill would be lower in the UK, and many people in UK don't even have "cable". It's not as all-pervasive as in the US.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Same for the US, sort of by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      * Video Games - $23 billion

      So video games beat out the big screen and music in the US. I believe this has been the case for at least a few years.

      https://www.selectusa.gov/medi...

      Now consider that a lot of people are not paying on a yearly basis, and suddenly the games are taking up a significant mount of usertime. I update Diablo three maybe every other year, and my son has gotten into emulating old school games on a RPi3, essentially paying 30 dollars for a world of games.

      And this brings up the fact that you don't have to have the Whizbang Platinum 10 million console to have good gameplay. There are more non-pay options than pay options.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:Same for the US, sort of by neoRUR · · Score: 1

      So people are reading more then watching movies, listening to music or playing video games?
      That's a good thing then, right?

  6. Narrow definition by sjbe · · Score: 1

    The video games sector now accounts for more than half of the entertainment market in UK, according to new figures. From a report: The Entertainment Retailers Association (ERA) said the gaming market's value rose to $4.85bn,

    That's only true if you take a ridiculously narrow definition of the "entertainment market". The English Premier League is unquestionably a form of entertainment and that league alone had revenues of $6.4 billion last year. And that's just one sport in the UK. Add in all the other lower tier leagues, other sports, etc and it's pretty easy to show that video games are just a piece of the overall pie. I'm not even getting into forms of "entertainment" like drinking and other adult recreation which undoubtedly are far larger.

  7. RPG vs MMO by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Watching RPG's gettting rebranded MMO's in the 90's to stick drm server lock into them and charge a subscription was annoying,

    On the paper, RPG and MMO try to cater to different taste.
    - RPG are still single player (think Witcher 3)
    - whereas MMO are the multiplayer online cousin thereof.

    There is a difference, it's not simply rebranding.
    But for the rest (using this as an excuse to lock the players into subscription-based cash-milking scheme) I fully agree.

    Nothing technically should prevent you from running your own server and having your own run with your group of friends instead of needing to rent out some "shard" in some publisher's data centre.

    But except for Minecraft, very few modern-day popular game actually offer this option.
    And even if you try to run some 3rd party re-implementation of the server (as some players did with Ragnarok Online), there's a high chance that the publisher will try to C&D you into oblivion and force you to pay for their servers (see Blizzard)

      the fact that the public fell all over themselves to pay money for software they didn't own or control incentivized the entire industry to code games in a way that the public never controls the game. Watching Team fortress 2 going from paid product to f2p microtransaction ridden game was pretty much the death knell for game ownership. Now that even fucking starcraft 2 is in on it.

    Sad place where PC gaming and software ownership (aka windows 10 as a service we definitely are in an idiocracy) ended up due to the masses getting internet.

    T

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  8. Re:In England there is a TV tax by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  9. Nothing new by Comboman · · Score: 1

    From 1950 to 1970, the pinball industry made more money than Hollywood. Interactive entertainment has always been more profitable, despite being mostly ignored by the so-called cultural critics.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  10. Define interactive by sjbe · · Score: 1

    From 1950 to 1970, the pinball industry made more money than Hollywood.

    Citation needed.

    Interactive entertainment has always been more profitable, despite being mostly ignored by the so-called cultural critics.

    Define what you mean by interactive entertainment. I realize that sounds obvious but I think it's less obvious than it seems. Professional sports spectating isn't really interactive but it's one of the biggest pieces of the entertainment market - far bigger revenues than the market for actually playing sports. Movies aren't interactive but they are enormous once you include all the revenues and not just the box office. Books aren't interactive but that's a huge industry. Streaming video isn't interactive but is huge. Porn is mostly not interactive and that market is enormous - probably bigger than the above markets combined. So what do you mean exactly by "interactive entertainment"? Video games are indeed a big market but you'll need more than that.

    1. Re:Define interactive by Comboman · · Score: 2

      From 1950 to 1970, the pinball industry made more money than Hollywood.

      Citation needed.

      "Special When Lit: A Pinball Documentary (2009)" Note the date range (1950-1970). There was no home market for movies at this point, thus box office was the total.

      Interactive entertainment has always been more profitable, despite being mostly ignored by the so-called cultural critics.

      Define what you mean by interactive entertainment. I realize that sounds obvious but I think it's less obvious than it seems. Professional sports spectating isn't really interactive but it's one of the biggest pieces of the entertainment market - far bigger revenues than the market for actually playing sports.

      Citation needed. If I offered you all the revenue from Professional golf (advertising, tv rights) or the revenue from recreational golf (equipment sales, green fees, etc), which would you choose? The NFL (one of the most profitable professional leagues) makes about $8 billion a year. A single sports equipment company (Nike), made $34 billion last year.

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  11. Music Industry should sue.. by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Lost sales... damn pirates.

    --
    [($)]
  12. Nothing like half! by petes_PoV · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The video games sector now accounts for more than half of the entertainment market in UK,
    ... the gaming market's value rose to $4.85bn
    ... Despite being the youngest of our three sectors, it is now by far the biggest."

    However, that amount is smaller than the BBC's budget: £5Bn, or $6Bn. So the reality is that the entire gaming market isn't even bigger than a single broadcaster.

    The entertainment market must include TV. Just like it must include films, music, print (yes, there is still some left). If you wanted to stretch it you could probably say restaurants, bars and drugs count as "entertainment", too.

    This sounds like someone trying to mislead to gain publicity. They might have meant just the online entertainment market. But they should not say simply the "entertainment market".

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  13. Re:brits by alvinrod · · Score: 2

    It probably depends on the game. A lot of them these days are slightly more complex and pretty Skinner Box designed to get you to spend additional money on in-app purchases, loot crates, or whatever other scheme the pimps have come up with.

    It might not be for mindless zombies, but it may be trying to turn you into one.

  14. By this metric, reading is as bad as TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I couldn't agree more. In fact, I find it easier to fall asleep at night while watching TV in bed. Without TV my mind is always ticking over thinking about things that keep me awake. Watching TV, I find it easy to mentally switch off and I easily nod off.

    Many of us do the same thing reading, so I wouldn't "read" too much into that.

    In fact, I'd be careful drawing any conclusions. An hour spent watching PBS is likely to be more intellectually rewarding than the same hour playing . In contrast, an hour spent watching some reality TV show like the Apprentice, Survivor, or Housewives on the other hand probably does more to lobotomize a person than 200 hours spent playing the most mindlessly stupid, gratuitously violent, lame ass video game, while an hour spent playing an educational game might well equal or exceed the value of that same hour spent watching PBS.

  15. Re:brits by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

    mindless zombies

    Is someone who plays a game more of a "mindless zombie" than someone who watches TV?

    I'm not saying either activity is probably very healthy if overdone- but surely, playing games where you think and interact is less "mindless zombie" than watching TV where you don't interact at all.

    Depends.

    Shooting zombies or catching cupcakes or whatever might be a little less intellectually stimulating than a Sherlock Holmes movie or a serialization of The Brothers Karamazov.

  16. Re:brits by nagora · · Score: 1

    While I agree with your general point, my feeling is that gaming seems to take up more time. People are more engaged (more entertained, if you like) and less aware of how long they've sat playing a game than they are when watching TV, except for box-bingeing. I guess it's the interactive nature of the pass-time.

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  17. Re:brits by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Well, it's easier to get your subliminal orders from the secret world government by watching TV with a slack jaw.

  18. Participation economy by sjbe · · Score: 1

    "Special When Lit: A Pinball Documentary (2009)" Note the date range (1950-1970). There was no home market for movies at this point, thus box office was the total.

    There absolutely was a home market for movies during that era. Granted it wasn't anywhere close to what it is today but it certainly existed. TV syndication was a thing even back then and popular movies were often periodically re-released in theaters. Anyway, you cited a documentary which evidently makes the (seemingly unsupported) claim. That's insufficient evidence. I'm not saying your claim is necessarily false but I'll need more than that to believe it to be factual.

    If I offered you all the revenue from Professional golf (advertising, tv rights) or the revenue from recreational golf (equipment sales, green fees, etc), which would you choose?

    If I'm running a business the answer is easily pro golf (far better profits which is what really matters - do you really want to try to manage 15000 golf courses?) but I'll admit that's a pretty good rebuttal regarding interactive versus spectating. I think the economy around golf is something in the neighborhood of $70 billion and the PGA is something like $2-3 billion annually. So good example. On the other hand golf is probably an outlier in that regard because it's a rare sport played primarily by adults. Baseball for example has no where near as large an economy at the sub-pro levels. Football (either kind) has huge spectating revenues but almost nobody plays it as an adult. Same with hockey. The only sports I can think of that are heavily played by amateur adults and have a good sized economy to them are tennis, cycling, running, & triathlon. Might be missing a few but most sports see a heavy drop off in participation after high school graduation and thus the economy around them after that is build on spectating.

    The NFL (one of the most profitable professional leagues) makes about $8 billion a year. A single sports equipment company (Nike), made $34 billion last year.

    Nike is a clothing company that is only incidentally related to any given sport. Only a modest percentage of Nike's revenues come from football merch sales or any other single sport for that matter. Much of Nike's sales have nothing at all to do with any sporting activity - I wore some Nike apparel at work today. If you are going to spread the definition that wide you may as well include Amazon for shipping you the clothing and Apple for telling you the game scores on your phone. I'm exaggerating of course but it comes back to my point that defining the markets for interactive versus non-interactive isn't as easy as it seems at first glance.