It's the Economy, Stupid

This Sunday's political column on Joystiq gets into the economics of games, and why Canada's encouragement of game developing may have a very positive impact on the industry of the future. In the same vein as France's declaration of games as art, the 'Great Canadian Videogame Competition' may just mean more great games for gamers, more jobs for game makers, and the chance for a new EA or Ubisoft to emerge. From the article: "While the nanny staters trip over one another in their rush to legislate games, they are missing an opportunity to embrace an industry that grows bigger every year, one that could brings jobs and educational opportunities to their constituents. ESA boss Doug Lowenstein talked about the economic benefits of the video game industry at this year's E3, pointing out that U.S. sales of games for all platforms surpassed the $10 billion mark in 2004. But more importantly, the game industry stimulates another $7.7 billion in related spending, bringing its net effect to $18 billion."

Good luck...

[Otter]

So, you think that the government deciding what games should be developed is going to lead to better games than the government trying to keep certain people from buying certain games...?

Enjoy Multicultural Non-competitive Curling '07!

We don't need another EA

[slughead]

In the same vein as France's declaration of games as art, the 'Great Canadian Videogame Competition' may just mean more great games for gamers, more jobs for game makers, and the chance for a new EA or Ubisoft to emerge.

EA messes up so much of its product out of stupid policies like high programmer turnover and insisting on long-running franchises like Madden 20XX and others.

What the game industry needs is for the PC to reemerge, which wont happen until there's an OS for PCs that 'just works'. People use consoles over PCs because their PC is splorked full of viruses and spyware so all their games run like crap, even on expensive hardware. That's in addition to the constant battle over whose responsibility it is to get the game to work: the video card company or the game company.

EA messes up so many PC games it's surprising they still make them. Bugs galore, lack of optimization, and console-like limitations all end up in the final product. It ends up ruining otherwise excellent games such as Global Operations.

That's one reason Valve kicked so much ass--they release games when they are DONE (yeah I know EA helped distribute hard copies of HL2, but valve sold most of the copies themselves through downloads). I'd put half-life 2 up against any single player game EA ever produced.

Re:I must be reading this wrong...

[xenocide2]

Moreover, EA isn't a successful game creator, they're successful as a game publisher. This means focusing on the traditional business areas: marketing, advertising, and financing. None of which is promoted via this Canadian contest. This isn't about making the next EA or Ubisoft, it's about making the next company for EA to buy and lay to waste.

Alone?

[Admiral Frosty]

Am I the only one here that thinks Governmental interference into the market is generally a bad thing? I really don't want to see government subsidized games.

You can talk all you want about market failures, but I seriously doubt that video games qualify as one.

I think you missed the point

[Ynsats]

The article is not about subsidizing game makers. The article is about the economic impact a very large company like EA or Ubisoft could make to an area. Game makers provide numerous jobs in not only software development but also in IT, any business discipline and if the company manufactures on-site, there are skilled labor jobs and even unskilled labor jobs available.

Providing incentives for a company to a move a plant of any kind into an economically depressed area is almost always a boon to the area. Even if the tax hit is taken in the incentive, the tax revenue goes up because more people are working than before and that is a constant source of revenue. There doesn't have to be any tax revenue expenditure to make that happen. However, it does need the support of the law makers and government to make it happen.

In the same vein, having another company the size of EA or Ubisoft is a good thing, regardless of anyone's opinions about the quality of the product they produce. A large company provides a large environment, full of resources and experienced people that can support many entry level positions. Those entry level positions are filled by entry level candidates that have a vast environment to learn in. Once they learn, they either move up the ladder and make thier own impact on that company or they go elsewhere to try and do better than that company. Either way, it provides choices to consumers. Give consumers choices and they will go for what they like. That drives competition which drives advancements and yields a more enjoyable gaming experience for teh consumer.

Just because Madden 2007 isn't the Slashdot communitiy's cup of tea doesn't mean that there aren't a million other sports fan out there who love the thought of being able to play NFL Coach on thier couch at home and see how well they will do. EA and Ubisoft are large and incharge because no matter how poor anyone thinks thier games are, the bottom line is that they sell games and that is what drives any business, profit.

Re:I must be reading this wrong...

[swanky street]

A large video game production company really would be good kudos for Canada; sadly, though, it would suck for the rest of us, as games such as "The Lone Constable" and "Mush! Dog Sled Racing: Yukon Drift" would flood the clearance bins at gamestops nationwide, making it insanely impossible to find that $4.99 Red Faction PS2 disk (or the like) buried far underneath it all.