Gaming Industry Bigger than Hollywood Box Office

[indie]

Game Wars (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_09/b3922094.htm)


The worldwide video game industry, with revenues of $24.5 billion last year, overtook movie box-office receipts, and sales are expected to soar to $55 billion by 2008, according to PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

Very interesting. If the video game industry > Hollywood box office, why aren't programmers, game designers, artists, etc. getting rich? Our society is so (ahem) programmed to respond to what Hollywood stars are doing, eating and dating that it fails to recognize and reward the true geniuses. Damn shallow it is. I bet Brooke Burke got paid more for her "voiceover" in Need for Speed Underground 2 than the person who came up with it! UGH!!

[cjs55]

People employed in the video game industry are usually extremely over-worked. The industry is very immature compared to say hollywood, and really has alot of growing up to do. A few problems right now: The type of people that work in the industry usually love what they do enough to deal with working ridiculous amounts and getting treated like crap, and there are usually quite a few people waiting to take your place at any given moment. Right now the big giants like EA and Vivendi are really fucking everyone over, buying out indie studios, buying exclusive rights to the NFL liscense, etc, overworking employees, draining the soul out of their creations...

[jimkopelli]

Programmers and game designers aren't unionized, actors are. It's harder to put a face with a product if the product is lines of code as opposed to acting...

Give the gaming generation a bit more time to get older.

[indie]

55 views and only 2 replies?

And you folks call yourselves intellectuals . . .

Hmmm, dare I start a "beauty over brains" thread?

:smooch:

[Lee]

To many people prefer social activities and passive entertainment to melt thier brains away to ever appreciate videogames properly......The games industry might make a bucket load of cash but remember this is largely because one gamer spends a lot of money on games when compared to a movie goer......The statistics for users (for games) or in movies' case viewers are very different.

[ApeTheDog]

Market dynamics. An artist, programmer or writer can be replaced by someone else. A Morgan Freeman can't.

[indie]

Market dynamics. An artist, programmer or writer can be replaced by someone else. A Morgan Freeman can't.

What do you mean "A" Morgan Freeman can't be replaced? I agree that "THE" Morgan Freeman can't be replaced, but the concept of him certainly can . . . replace him with any of those other overpaid, underworked massive-headed egotistical box office stars.

Your response is a shred of proof that society is brainwashed into believing that movie stars have more worth as human beings than your average Joe.

[Geoff]

What do you mean "A" Morgan Freeman can't be replaced? I agree that "THE" Morgan Freeman can't be replaced, but the concept of him certainly can . . . replace him with any of those other overpaid, underworked massive-headed egotistical box office stars.

Your response is a shred of proof that society is brainwashed into believing that movie stars have more worth as human beings than your average Joe.

well, he has a point. But remember Hollywood depends upon its stars for sales, and encourages a popular idol approach. Of course you cant replace 'the person' so popularity becomes based upon a particular individuals beauty, personality (perceived) and often idiosyncracies (take Jim Carrey for example.. actually, please take Jim Carrey, please!!).

Software is written by programmers, using a skill that is faceless. And a skill that others can learn. Of course they wont be paid as much as someone who is valued for their very existence and their 'unique' (emphasis on unique) set of skills. Why on earth should they be? Its a capitalist market economy.

Remember, 80%+ of professional actors are 'resting' officially at any one time, their skills are not transferrable and demand for their unique look is dependent upon circumstances. Any welll trained programmer could work for a software house, with at least useable success.

Not comparing apples with apples at all.

-Geoff

[Geoff]

Programmers and game designers aren't unionized, actors are. It's harder to put a face with a product if the product is lines of code as opposed to acting...

Give the gaming generation a bit more time to get older.

The gaming generation is already older. Gaming has been mainstream for years, nothing is changing. Dont perceive it as all 'youth'. Nothing changes just when you youngun' get older because you are still consumers, and the producers are not hearing messages like "we want to see you pay more to the programmers, yay"

If anything the situation is worse- if you go back 20 years, games were written by one or two people and therefore those individuals as Indies could become well known and well paid on the merits of their own skills. That is much rarer now as production values have gone mainstream. Take for example the Bulldog guy, or Chris Sawyer or the Elite guy (Braben). These people had some fame back when I was a youngun.

-Geoff

[indie]

well, he has a point. But remember Hollywood depends upon its stars for sales, and encourages a popular idol approach. Of course you cant replace 'the person' so popularity becomes based upon a particular individuals beauty, personality (perceived) and often idiosyncracies (take Jim Carrey for example.. actually, please take Jim Carrey, please!!).

Software is written by programmers, using a skill that is faceless. And a skill that others can learn. Of course they wont be paid as much as someone who is valued for their very existence and their 'unique' (emphasis on unique) set of skills. Why on earth should they be? Its a capitalist market economy.

Remember, 80%+ of professional actors are 'resting' officially at any one time, their skills are not transferrable and demand for their unique look is dependent upon circumstances. Any welll trained programmer could work for a software house, with at least useable success.

Point taken. However, I was referring to the concept of distribution of wealth in general. A movie star is not the only thing it takes to make a movie. It takes writers, directors, set and costume designers, gaffes, grips, production assistants and others. But it is the actor who gets the money/fame/whatever. The writers, directors, set & costume designers, etc. are the "behind the scenes" people, much like the programmers or writers of video games.

I was merely commenting that in the absence of a human "star," the gaming industry should reward it's "behind the scenes" stars, those who have that unique talent, or unique concept that makes a game successful.

Let's say a movie is made, stars Jim Carrey, and does exceptionally well at the box office. Jim Carrey not only gets money to make the movie, he gets money post-production when the movie gets released on DVD, and people rent it, or people buy it. Even though his work is "done" he's still benefiting from the collective efforts of others, whereas the others get no benefit at all.

[cjs55]

Refuting a bit of what was said earlier: Some designers have extremely unique and quite impressive skills. Programmers, not so much, but some are certainly much better than others. Designers are the celebrities of the gaming world however, and certainly equate well to faceless directors in the movie world. But to gamers there are already quite a few 'famous' designers: Shigeru Miyamoto, Will Wright (sim city/the sims), Sid Meier (Civ), American McGee (mainly just because he puts his name on the box), the Ultima guy, and many more. There *should* be more name recognition, especially for designers. There are a ton of games that I have absolutely adored but which I have no idea who the lead designer was, something that would never happen in film. So I think that maybe there should be a bit more of a focus on that sort of thing.

But I do agree that the move away from indie development has made it harder to focus on certain people, but that is mainly just because games aren't made by 2 or 3 people anymore. Certainly devteams gain a reputation, and while its not quite the same as having a lead designer you can hail for the project, its still something at least.


Back to the other point: I agree with indiejade. The people working in this industry are extremely easy to push around for whatever reason, while many of them are quite unique and talented. Programmers are probably lowest on the chain of uniqueness (unless you are really damn good). Artists, Sound Designers, Lead Designers, and hell even lead QA requires quite a bit of unique ability and creative intelligence that aren't as easily replacable as one may think.

[Geoff]

It's the same in most industries. Remember this is a CAPITALIST world we are talking about here. Why on earth should wealth be distributed, do you want a communist set up?
What do shareholders do to earn wealth.. nothing, should they give their income to the workers? What about these privately held companies where the owner sits at home and rakes in everybody's work as cash. Do you dislike this? You need a bolshevik revolution to change it.
It's a market economy, you wont enforce sharing, all you can do is be more desirable and less replaceable to be better paid. Which well know public faced stars are.
-Geoff

[ApeTheDog]

What are people going to remember most about a game? The name of the company that made it, not the individual programmers that worked on it. Everybody knows about 'Rockstar games'. Far less people know who the lead designer on it is. That's why, if rockstar were to go out of business, somebody, EA maybe, would big good money to take over the company for the brand name. But they wouldn't be as willing to give the actual people who make up the company a job.

A great actor is the best advertisement you can have for a movie. Take the best ten unknown actors in the world, put them in a movie, it may very well end up being a straight to video vehicle, because you have no guarantee that people will come watch it. Put Al Pacino in your movie, however, and you have an almost guaranteed box office succes. Why? Because first of all, a lot of other good actors are going to want to be in your movie. You have Pacino. You'll have a big part of your marketing done too. Pacino giving an interview about your movie through the press junkets means it'll be noticed. And so on... movie stars = big money. You don't have to like it. It's not fair, but it is how the world works.

Movie stars are rare too. There are only a few of them who are known all over the world. They are rare, and something that is rare and is wanted by all means he who has the most money will be paying their paycheck.

I also think it's unfair. I think it's unfair that Ronaldo gets paid a lot of money for playing football too. It's not worth it. But, he is the only ronaldo on the planet, and everybody wants him. Hence, he gets paid as much as possible.

[misutii]

i dont like it when people call systems 'unfair' because fariness is utterly subjective and equality does not by any means equal fairness because no one is equal

[ApeTheDog]

Okay. It's unfair to probably anybody except Ronaldo. Do you like it now?

[misutii]

Okay. It's unfair to probably anybody except Ronaldo. Do you like it now?

no because if we concur to your definition of "fair" africans will steal our right to use the internet (because wealth is limited and it's unfair to them that we get to use the internet) and fuck that shit i want my internet more than i want them to have anything else, so call me selfish but you're in the same boat.

[Warrior413]

When EA on Jan. 18 spent $800 million to lock up ESPN content such as X-Game sports competition for use in games for the next 15 years, it was just the latest jolt to an industry in which megadeals have become as commonplace as laser-toting ogres.
Laser-toting ogre? What the hell is this guy playing!?

[ApeTheDog]

no because if we concur to your definition of "fair" africans will steal our right to use the internet (because wealth is limited and it's unfair to them that we get to use the internet) and fuck that shit i want my internet more than i want them to have anything else, so call me selfish but you're in the same boat.

Good God. I had no idea my words had such power. I see what you mean, and I admit that the world is not fair for anyone.

However, I think there are nuances. Things can be more unfair than others. If you believe that fairness exists, if only as a concept, then surely Ronaldo earning a small african countries national product is further from that norm than me currently earning barely enough to sustain myself and my internet, no?

You have a point, though. I should have said: '...is more unfair'.

[misutii]

Good God. I had no idea my words had such power. I see what you mean, and I admit that the world is not fair for anyone.

However, I think there are nuances. Things can be more unfair than others. If you believe that fairness exists, if only as a concept, then surely Ronaldo earning a small african countries national product is further from that norm than me currently earning barely enough to sustain myself and my internet, no?

You have a point, though. I should have said: '...is more unfair'.

i know i tend to exagerrate my opinions because it gets more reaction out of people... in reality i don't like ronaldo and would be all up for ransacking his parisian castle if you'll drive

[ApeTheDog]

<french accent> pah... getting ze reaction out of zie people. Tres extravert. *snootifies nose* </french accent>

[INTerloPer]

Are you willing to pay more for your next game if it means that the people who designed/programmed it will be able to afford their own island? If these people are really being so abused, maybe they should just quit their jobs and go work in a malaysian sweat shop.\

[indie]

Just got my Business 2.0 (www.business2.com) magazine in the mail yesterday, and guess what some of the "Hot Jobs" for 2005 are?


OUTLOOK: Hollywood had a blockbuster 2004, releasing an unprecedented three pictures that sailed past the $300 million mark in domestic box-office revenue. But that's nothing compared with a record $15 billion in DVD sales. It's no wonder that salaries for the top third of studio staffers in Los Angeles are setting records. "Movies had a good year, and for those people, things have never been better," says Jeffrey Cole, a program director at the University of Southern California's Annenberg Center for Communication. "Salaries have been going crazy."

But the film industry isn't the hottest sector in entertainment; that distinction belongs to the videogame business, in which sales are expected to nearly double by 2008. Like biotech, the industry hasn't been around long enough to groom a workforce that can keep pace with that growth. The biggest game studios in Southern California and the San Francisco Bay Area are pouncing on a tiny talent pool. THQ, for example, based in Calabasas Hills, was recently looking for an art director with a BFA, seven years' experience, and four videogame credits. One CEO estimates that there are only 200 people in the country who fit those job specs.

HOT AREA: Southern California
HOT JOBS/SALARIES: . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2004 . . . . . . . .2005
SVP/EVP of theatrical production . . . . . .$750,000 . . . . .$850,000
Sr. game producer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$150,000 . . . . .$175,000
Sr. game designer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $130,000. . . . . $150,000
Sr. game programmer (physics). . . . . . . .$110,000. . . . . $120,000
Sr. game programmer (A.I.). . . . . . . . . . $100,000. . . . . $110,000

So okay, I admit it. . . guess I was just looking for some reason to get angry at the Hollywood people, as always their arrogance annoys me.

There is no correlation whatsoever to the gaming industry. I admit the idea for this thread spawned from some sidebar I read in Wired. (March issue, page 073, if you are interested).

What this rant *should* have been, and what my next rant probably will be "The Market Dynamics of the 'Beautiful People'" :devil:

[cjs55]

Backing up my point:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/joestraitiff/

However, as someone said about this in a forum in which it was posted:

"Let this be a lesson: if you don't have a spine, you'll be working a shit job for 12 hours a day 7 days a week."