Who's Sorry Now?

Apparently, the video game industry is. Still. And I'm not sure why.

It seems to me that most of the articles out there written about the video games industry generally have at least one of the following two themes present in the article:

1. “I'm sorry that video games seem so violent to you (a non-video game playing person or organization). They aren't to us (the video game industry), because we know that they are just made up worlds we've created to play in, and frankly we don't take ourselves that seriously anyway.”

2. “Hey everybody, we're a real industry and you should take us seriously!”

I think it's time to relinquish the second one. With video game budgets reaching the sizes of some feature film budgets, development cycles stretching out almost as long as feature films, and industry revenues in the same neighborhood as the motion pictures industry, I think the video game industry should admit that they have "grown up” somewhat and just get on with the business. I don't hear the likes of Youtube, Facebook or Myspace apologizing for a huge marketplace presence or multi-hundred million dollar valuations (after only a few months and a modest business model). Video games, as a genre, have been in existence for over 40 years (NOTE: for a brief, cool look at this, check out my friend's recent visit with a living legend – one of the, if not THE, industry founder – Ralph Baer).

The USA Today had two big stories today related to video games:

- one profiled the new Wii from Nintendo and a Q & A with Reginald Fils-Aime, Nintendo of Americas new President and Chief Operating Officer

- one profiled 4 video games as examples of how "games can be helpful"

See what I mean? I think these were pretty informative articles, but I don't hear similar undercurrents in articles about Ford, NTT Docomo, Pfizer, etc.

What I think is interesting about this, however, is that it seems to be ubiquitous; there isn't one particular writer, editor or publication taking this tack. It seems fairly prevalent.

So what's it going to to take to change this? I think the industry itself has to change and move itself forward. One of the things that struck me at E3 this year was not the ubiquitous Booth Babes. It was what I call the lack of originality in the content. Generally speaking, the new game releases broke out into the following categories:

1. Themes:
- "Dungeons and Dragons" genre (these would be the Worlds of Warcraft, etc.)
- "shooting games" (could be FPS' like Unreal Tournament, Call of Duty, the various vehicular combat simulations, etc.)

2. Line Extensions of Existing Franchises:
- almost any game that uses one or more of the following: Star Wars characters or story lines, Marvel comic heroes, Disney characters, any new movie or TV show release (Desperate Housewives??? Really? So "desperate housewives" are playing video games now, it's not just 13-year old kids in the basement?)

3. "Casual Games""
- in quotes because even though everyone in the industry seems to have a certain perception about it, it's coming across to me as "We know there's an undefiend market segment out there, and we think that it happens to be the bulk of our target market. However, since we can't quite define it very specifically, we're going to "throw a lot of stuff" at it (i.e. - subscription revenue models, ringtones, Bejeweled and "classic" game knock-offs (or re-published versions), etc.) and see what sticks". No risks here...these are all merely "investments in micro-markets."

One of the latest market perspectives to gain a lot of attention has been articulated by Chris Anderson, and his notion of long tail economics. With enabling technologies like the internet, I personally think this is the first era where we can actually see these dynamics play out in real-time. Examples:

Success - Cable TV. Bruce got it wrong when he said there were 57 channels with nuthin' on - there are literally over 500 channels (depending on your service provider and package) with nothing on - except those shows that are really of interest to you. And if you can find something unique enough for you, head over to Youtube or MySpace

(potential) Failure - Satellite Radio. What was supposed to be a great revolution to revitalize the medium is actually turning into a losing business venture (at least for the foreseeable future). What's great about satellite radio is the broader spectrum of offerings (literally). What's bad about it is getting it paid for - either through subscription revenue (which is another en vogue business concept these days, that shouldn't be applied as ubiquitously as people seem inclined to do so - but that's another blog I'm cooking up), or by charging advertisers higher rates to reach a more refined audience. The Wall Street Journal reported today that XM Satellite Radio and Sirius are losing significant amounts of money at a time when they forecasted to be making significant amounts of money.

What I object to, however, is this concept being applied "everywhere". The crisis isn't a lack of content, it's a dearth of creativity. It's imagination. The technology already exists. Stop apologizing and let's get on with the business already!

As I said to the panelists at E3, if I'm wrong and long tail economics apply here, then there really is a market for Aunt Bea's Quilting Smack-down!, and I will be here waiting to try it out, with virtual knitting needles on my cell phone...who's the Developer and Publisher willing to put their money where their mouth is?