HomeForumsWhat's newResources 
 
 
Good article on falling Japanese game market
Sundance_3 - Apr 1, 2005
  Sundance_3 Apr 1, 2005
Buisness Week... has posted an interesteting article on the falling market share of Japanese games in the United States.

Though this information is nothing new, does any have any thoughts?

 Malakai Apr 1, 2005
Damn, microsoft must be making an impact with the ol' XBOX then :/

 CrazyGoon Apr 2, 2005
As far as I'm concerned, the developers (whether they are japanese or not) are not to blame for not "catering the gunlinger", by producing game after game of the same stuff, but rather, it's the consumers for not expanding their horizons and learning to love all genres. And this all relates to the growing change of the market.

 it290 Apr 2, 2005
Given the percentage of the market dominated by sports games, it's not really surprising. Gaming is mainstream now, but so are games. Back in the 16-bit era, Japanese games were easily the most popular, not just because most of the best games were Japanese, but because gaming at that time didn't really try to incorporate popular culture the way it does now. Japanese developers can't really compete with Western developers on that front... I think if they really want to try to capture the Madden and GTA market, they'll have to team up with Western shops. Even games like Metal Gear Solid or Resident Evil, which have a heavy Hollywood feel, would probably appeal to more people here if the storyline and design were worked on by someone familiar with Western audiences. Would that make the games better? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Now, a lot of the hardcore gamer crowd like games that are more niche, including a lot of games that never get released outside of Japan. I think we'll start to see more of those releases over here. The market is getting saturated enough that games will likely drop in price, and niche Japanese titles put out as budget releases will become more common.

 Berty Apr 2, 2005
i think that games are heading for a market crash; too much investment for too little audience.

Although a crash may be bad initially, i think that it will essentially wash away the tides of crap games at the moment.

EDIT..

Should clarify,

If there is a crash, it will begin in Japan with large development houses dropping there dev studios (which is already happening; Konami, Sega Capcom). I think that this will have a follow through effect into the west, especially that these are large publicly traded companies. I just think that the marketplace is too flooded at the moment, too many consoles, too many companies, all trying to compete as agressively (finacially) as possible with each other.

Now, if japan is losing money in the west, and also facing a shrinking marketplace domestically, then there will no doubt be trouble if agressive measures aren't taken.

Maybe, i am reading into this a bit too much, but of late there have been some signs that a crash is coming. (EA being sued, Capcom closing down its osaka offices, MS bleeding money on xbox production, Nintendo losing ground in the console market)

 CrazyGoon Apr 2, 2005
Although it may seem like there are a lot of clones and sequels on the shelves these days, I don't believe the situation will end out the same as it did back in the 70's (refering to the crash). And the reason why I say this is because I think that games these days appeal to a much wider audience than it did back then - therefore, if a group of people tire of games, there are plenty more people who are interested, and even more who can easily become interested.

Instead of a crash, I think it will turn out like Hollywood - the big "blockbusters" made by the capitalists with deep pockets will keep churning out the crap that is easy to milk, whilst the odd development team pumps out a game in which a lot of thought went into but doesn't sell half as well since the companies budget can't market and distribute the game on the same scale as the capitalists.

Even if you are a gamer or not, you can't stop the inevitable flow that the industry has been swept into.

 Berty Apr 3, 2005
Its true what you say about the first market crash in the 70's (damn pong!) But i think that this is more reflective of the crash in the early eighties, were computer manufacturers were undercutting each other until companies folded.

Plus i think that quality control isn;t what it used to be. I think that it may leed to a lack of consumer confidence.

The reason why i think that a crash is possible under a growing market is that these are large publicly traded companies that have to answer to share holders. Now, if there is a continued downtourn in the market, investors drop shares and then the companies share price dwindles into a downward spiral.

 Gallstaff Apr 3, 2005
Couldn't all of this mean that after this drop (if there is one) another revolution is on the way in terms of consoles? In the 80s, the NES and most notably super mario bros. brought confidence in console game back to the casual gamer.

 CrazyGoon Apr 4, 2005
I wouldn't think so. Back then, there was much more notible acomplishments when talking about 'revolution' stuff - graphic/ sound/ gameplay improvements. Thesedays, the best you'll get is another fog/ shadow/ masking effect to play with. So if there was a crash, there wouldn't be that much developers could do (apart from making stellar games - that nobody would probably realise are stellar unless it was firmly backed up with marketing).

And what I'm referring to with the sentence "games thesedays appeal to a much wider audience" is that graphics and sound has improved to a point where it's a whole lot easier for the average joe to relate to games than it was back when graphics and sound were crap - resulting in a wider audience (made up of people who aren't really die-hard on games anyway).

 Sundance_3 Apr 4, 2005
I suppose reality augmentation in games could open massive opportunities for developers and spur new creativity, but that's years away (if ever) in at least an affordable sense.

 Berty Apr 4, 2005
A crash would not be bad for consumers. Smaller companies wouln't be as affected so long as they had publishing deals with smaller firms also.

Crazygoon, I totally agree witht the wider audience statment, but wouldn't that crowd be expecting more and more each generation (technically)? and therefor be more dis-enchanted with lack of innovation?

I think that a crash could be good for games, but bad for big money hungry companies.

 CrazyGoon Apr 4, 2005

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by Berty@Sun, 2005-04-03 @ 07:01 PM



Crazygoon, I totally agree witht the wider audience statment, but wouldn't that crowd be expecting more and more each generation (technically)? and therefor be more dis-enchanted with lack of innovation?




[post=132515]Quoted post[/post]


You're talking about consumers wanting better graphics/ sound each generation, right? Whilst I believe graphics and sound are maturely developed for home consoles, there are a few little things that can be improved upon, but the changes won't be as significant as the technological leaps experiences in the generations of past. As this maybe sounds (to the gamer) bad, I think we have learned to appreciate the technology we have now, so that even if another big advance for video games is another decade away, we won't worry about it until it get's here. I think this is true when we look back at the times of previous console wars. Who was sick and tired of great games with 16-bit graphics and stereo sound back in 1994-5, when the only other options were the premature games for 3DO and Jaguar/CD?

So, if this answers your question, I don't think the audience will be so anticipative as to be so eager with what may be further down the track, that he/ she tires of the current state of things. But remember - only a serious gamer would be interested enough in the future of the enterprise to eagerly await more advancements, so your question didn't really apply to the wider audience; casual gamers/ non-gamers, in which the market is becoming more and more catered for.

 it290 Apr 4, 2005
People tend to overlook arcade machines. Arcades might not be nearly as big now as they were back in the early 90's, but remember that the 32-bit macines were in some sense a response to arcade games like Virtua Fighter and Cyber Sled. Of course, home machines are now as powerful as arcade games, but they lack the custom hardware. I think we'll see more immersive arcade hardware, like motion sensing technology, come home. This is already happening with things like the Eye Toy.

Also, console gamers don't want to get too far behind PC gamers in terms of graphics quality... and PC gamers will never have their lust for power satisfied. So I think people will still buy new consoles. Remember when the PSX first came out? I'm sure some of you saw games like Tomb Raider, etc. and thought 'holy crap, it can't get much better than this!'. The same will happen with the next gen.

 CrazyGoon Apr 5, 2005

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by it290@Mon, 2005-04-04 @ 11:39 AM



'holy crap, it can't get much better than this!'. The same will happen with the next gen.




[post=132553]Quoted post[/post]


Wishful thinking I'm only going to give room for graphical 'features' (new shaders, effects, etc). Why? Cause the only thing that they can improve with their 3D animation is adding photo-realistic graphics - in which today's proccessing engines aren't powerful enough to keep up with graphics of that intensity on the fly. Anyways, I don't even want photo-realistic graphics... I want to keep games looking as far away from realism as possible. Real isn't interesting... surreal is! :devil

 Mr. Moustache Apr 6, 2005
A video game crash is definetely a possiblity. But I highly doubt it will be as large as the crash of '84(4million copies of E.T. are still buried in the desert). The problem with games now are that people expect more, and they in turn recieve more, and then the next time around they want more, and in turn they recieve more. To compensate for this development teams have to be larger and more money has to be pumped in to develop the games, and in order to make your money back you have to have a massive marketing campaign or else you've just wasted millions of dollars on developing a game, whether it's crap or not noone will buy it unless they know about it. Unless your lucky and it becomes a cult game, but that's highly unlikely and even if it does you probably wouldn't make your money back.

And since you have to spend soooo much money to make a game you best believe companies are going to go with sure thing titles and clones and anything else that has a proven track record. If you were a big company would you risk millions of dollars on a new concept game that may sell, but may not. Or a tried and true formula game that may not sell well but at least has a better chance since that series(or genre) already has a built in consumer base?

I think there is a possibility we may see an arcade comeback, arcade games are cheap to produce, and if a company doesn't have to fork out millions of dollars for a game they may just give the developers some reign to be creative with their software(as can be seen with some of SEGA's wacky jap arcade games). And if put on cheap hardware(Atomiswave anyone?) can be sold to vendors at low prices and therefore be available to play at cheap prices. The reason arcade games became unpopular, at least in western markets, was because of insane cabinet prices ($10,000-$20,000 for a brand new cabinet) and the insance cost to play anything more than a few years old(a buck a pop, gimme a break). Since the Sammy merger SEGA has been more focused on arcade games than anything else, and even though that peeves some of you off something horrible it's an excellent business move and so far it has paid off extremely well. And if they can manage to do what they are attempting to do(bring cheap arcades back all over the world, even the middle east) they may be onto something special.

And as far as translating this into home market profits, the arcade games could be ported and sold as package deals(it's a lot cheaper to port a game), ie putting the entire real life series of arcade games(the one that spawned Crazy Taxi) onto a single game(they all used the same engine so it would've been easy peasy). You could scrap a lot of special features that way simply because so much content would already be available.

Anyways, I need to stop writing, if you have actually read this far I commend you.

:banana

 it290 Apr 6, 2005

  
	
	

		
		

			Wishful thinking smokin.gif I'm only going to give room for graphical 'features' (new shaders, effects, etc). Why? Cause the only thing that they can improve with their 3D animation is adding photo-realistic graphics - in which today's proccessing engines aren't powerful enough to keep up with graphics of that intensity on the fly. Anyways, I don't even want photo-realistic graphics... I want to keep games looking as far away from realism as possible. Real isn't interesting... surreal is! reddevil.gif


Better graphics doesn't necessarily mean more real... look at a game like Rez; that would have been impossible on the Playstation. However, I disagree when you say that is the only thing that can be improved. There are a lot of things that can be improved, although many of them fall to the artists and not the hardware. But still, we have a loooong way to go in creating believable worlds (not 'real', just believable). Don't just think about graphics. Think about things like physics, sound modelling, AI, and creating seamless environments with no loading (which is going to become increasingly difficult as detail increases). Think about scale. Even with an incredible looking game like Half-Life 2, you're only going to have about 6 or so character models on screen, maximum, and all the dudes on your side look the same. Think about a game where you're in a crowd amongst thousands of people, all of whom look realistic and unique, and you can talk to any of them, or pick anyone's pocket. That type of thing is going to require a hell of a lot more processing and rendering power than we currently have (not to mention more sophisticated algorithms and art techniques).

 mal Apr 6, 2005

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by it290@Thu, 2005-04-07 @ 04:59 PM



Think about a game where you're in a crowd amongst thousands of people, all of whom look realistic and unique, and you can talk to any of them, or pick anyone's pocket. That type of thing is going to require a hell of a lot more processing and rendering power than we currently have (not to mention more sophisticated algorithms and art techniques).




[post=132599]Quoted post[/post]


That does sound awsome though.

 CrazyGoon Apr 6, 2005

  
	
	

		
		

			Originally posted by it290+Thu, 2005-04-07 @ 01:59 AM-->
QUOTE(it290 @ Thu, 2005-04-07 @ 01:59 AM)
Better graphics doesn't necessarily mean more real... look at a game like Rez; that would have been impossible on the Playstation. 




[post=132599]Quoted post[/post]


[/b]



I agree. My standards for realism in games begin with photo-realistic graphics. Without that, it's only subliminal realism. And since photo-realistic games are not due out for decades, I conclude that there is nothing that developers can do cross the breach between "Animated looking", and "Real looking". Therefore, for the time being, better graphics definately will not result in games being more real.

But don't forget that whilst my standards for realism in games are high, the standards for a large majority of the market aren't. Their is a stern distinction that many in the market have made between the "realism" of better graphics compared to the "blocky/ pixelated/ whatever" of poorer graphics.