Will Hollywood's Slump Hit Video Games?

[Evil Avatar]

As of last weekend, Hollywood's box office was in the worst slump in 20 years. This week's Game Over column (http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/index.htm) on CNN/Money looks at the possibility that a similar fate could be in store for the gaming industry as publishers lean more and more towards licensed properties, game prices rise and griefers continue to annoy people in online gaming. From the column:

Both industries seem to have forgotten that innovation and fresh ideas are what captured audiences in the first place. Remakes and clones might put some change in your coffers in the short term, but you lose respect and credibility from your customers each time you do so. The film and gaming industries are supposed to be fonts of creativity, but lately both seem afraid to risk trying something new.

[bapenguin]

Good article Chris! So true...we definitley could see a slump in the gaming industry...the problem is though...things can't go up forever. The industry right now is at an all time high, the only way to go is down. Especially with game development cycles getting longer and longer, it'll be hard to keep up a consistant pace....I guess that's where the whole "episodic" gaming comes.

[Ailer]

I'm not sure if i simply lack the understanding of basic economics, but doesn't a price increase hurt sales even more, therefore leading into an even deeper recesion? And if the freaking industry would just make some good movies! The box office has of late improved, but video games continue to be nothing more then sequels of late, with little to no new ideas being introduced.

[Orphiuchus]

I dont think this will translate to games, licensed titles may not sell as well, but people are still going to buy games like battlefield 2 and WoW in droves.

And I would like to say again, all they have to do is MAKE GOOD MOVIES to fix this thing. Last movie I saw in theatures and liked was Collateral (I still need to see batman).

Since then I've rented just about every movie made before 1980, and I really have to say movies just aren't as good anymore. I get the feeling the people making movies dont actually LIKE movies anymore.

[Paranoia]

Or it could be video games that are responsible for the recent movie slump. You get more value for money buying a game, staying at home and play for hours end.

[Evil Avatar]

Or it could be video games that are responsible for the recent movie slump. You get more value for money buying a game, staying at home and play for hours end.

That is an interesting observation, and probably not totally untrue. Video Games as a hobby is an an all-time high - it finally seems to have drawn in the "casual" gamer... people like my Dad and my Uncles... who a few years ago wouldn't have ever considered playing a video game.

What I think is really hurting the movie theater industry right now is DVD sales. I spent $20.00 tonight to go see Land of the Dead - and I went to the movie alone. It was $9.00 for the ticket and $9.25 for a regular popcorn, Gatoraid and what should have been a $.50 pack of Mike & Ike.

If I had just stayed home, I could have waited 3 - 6 months and picked up the same movie on DVD (for less than the $20.00 I spent tonight) and watched it as often as I like.

I'm always hearing from friends about their huge DVD collections and the DVD collections of their family. I think the moviegoing experience is just starting to kind of die off as an entertainment outlet and people are moving more toward home theater.

Is this bad for Hollywood? Probably not. Box Office Take, the part of the industry that this article talks about that is in a 6% slump (over last year), is only a percentage of the total amount of money a movie makes. There is the domestic box office, international box office, DVD sales, DVD sales to rental outlets, TV licensing and Pay-Per-View licensing in addition to product merchandising.

Even with domestic box office slipping, I think that there is still more than enough juice in the Hollywood melon to keep them pumping out good (and even a few great) films for a long time.

(Insert Penny-Arcade "Fruit Fucker" image here.)

As for the video game industry hitting the same slump... maybe in 5 years after the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 have been out for a while, but I don't see it happening before then. Video games are just too new to most people for the industry to start to slump now.

[CapnAJ]

I'd go to Cinema's more often if they had really comfortable seating a table (and maybe a cooler) and a foot rest so I can really relax, stretch my legs and watch a film in comfort.

[PacerDawn]

I have to agree with Evil. The reason for the movie slump isn't because the movies are getting worse, it's because it's getting way too expensive to go. For a family of 3, you are talking $40-50 to go see a single movie in a theatre (tickets + popcorn + drink), as opposed to paying just $7 - $8 to rent the DVD from blockbuster (and that price includes popcorn and drink for EVERYONE). With the cost of living rising across the board, people are looking at ways of saving money, and seeing a movie in a theater is becoming more of an expensive luxury that most people simply cannot afford any more. Especially when it costs exponentially less to watch it on DVD.

If movie companies want to get more people in, they need to come down hard on theaters who are making a 500%+ profit on concessions and get them to make their prices more reasonable. Right now, owning a theater is a license to print money, and they are doing it at the expense of the movie makers.

[hideouslywrinkled]

I personally think that all the talk about Hollywood's slump is a bunch of bunk anyway.

Last year you had two movies from left field (well... one was from right field) gross more than $500 million domestically. Take away that money at this year's box office is about flat with last year, with a slight decrease in total ticket sales.

Then too there have been fewer movies released this year...

The real problem for Hollywood is too many sequels and remakes/rehashes, and not enough quality original content... (which we forgive too easily in the game world).

[Wyrm]

Evil is absolutely correct. My father and I were having a conversation about this the other day, it just isnt cost effective to go to the movies anymore. Hell, you can rent 4 DVDs for a night out by yourself at the movie, and I usually have to pay for another person, which means I could own two brand new dvds, or rent 8 of them.

My father made an interesting suggestion that would probably never work, but fun to ponder nonetheless. What's odd is, the gaming industry sort of already does it, but it's gradual and the effect is not of the same magnitude. What if movie tickets were priced based on how many people actually wanted to see a particular film. If they know it will be popular, they can charge 10 bucks for people to see it at release and then decrease the price the longer the film has been out. Films that are not as well known can gain higher admission by charging 5 bucks for a ticket while those higher priced ones are out. The way in which this is similiar to the game industry is that games are 50-60 bucks when they come out, and as they are out longer, they depreciate in value, as do most consumer goods. People that want to pay for the game and play it right away go ahead and pay the jacked up price. Games that arent as well known get their name out by selling for less. In most cases, it works. The game industry is booming now more than ever.

The other sad thing to note is that these CEOs and Executives dont think about the average consumer, they see themselves as a consumer and make decisions based on how they would like things to be for them. A family of four that doesnt have much money cannot afford to go to the movies on a weekend. If they bought food and drink (which frankly, I cant afford and I'm not overly poor), and four tickets, they've just been run up a weeks worth of groceries (if not more) for their family to LIVE on. If raising prices isnt making up for the extreme decline in admission, that should have been a red flag about 4 years ago.

Somewhere down the line, movies wont go to a theater anymore.

[XenonCJ]

Movies will be around for quite some time. It's not the same as watching something in your house. It's a social event, you get to see "the other freaks" and people also like to be the 1st to see something so they can discuss with their friends later.

[GunnyMo]

Master Evil is (for once) correct! :D Movies, I think, are slumping not only because of DVDs but because of a serious lack of innovation. When I went to see Ep. 3 just about every trailer beforehand were for remakes of older movies! It seems as if the majority of the industry has ran out of ideas. With a ten month old boy it is hard to get out to the theater so it really has to be a good movie. War of the Worlds will certainly draw me out this weekend but I don't see much else on the horizon to do so.

Video games are able to revitalize themselves every five years or so with a new console launch which leads to new titles and innovation. Maybe crazy ol' George Lucas, who has been a trend setter and always way ahead in what technology can do (special effects, digital, etc.), and his other blockbuster making pals are on the right track with 3D. I remember the re-emergence of 3D in the '80s with bad sci-fi movies; however, technology has come a long way since them. Perhaps that will be the shot in the arm the theater business needs. That and lowering their damn prices. Honestly, I'd be perfectly happy with paying $10-$15 for a ticket if the concession prices were cut in half.

[IagoTheHunted]

The no-creativity no-innovation problem is largly a matter of money at this point. Game and "hollywood" caliber movies are both hugely expensive now (I mean LOTR cost what, $300 million???? And if I'm not mistaken Metal Gear Solid 2 was around $50 million, but if game characters reach realism like the Final Fantasy movie, which they will, then we can look at what that movie cost, around $150 million, as a forcast of what to expect in truely next-gen games).
So whats the problem? The problem is that buisness men are the only people rich enough to make desisions with that sort of cash, and they are the least creative least innovative least in-touch-with-the-audience people you could possibly have making choices. The choice to make sequils and develop proven ideas is always going to look better on paper, those games and movies make WAY more money every time, and for that we have only ourselves to blame. It's like Star Wars Phantom Menace, maybe nobody liked it but everybody saw it, and that's as far as a buisness man is ever going to look, that's where the buisness side ends.
Is there a solution? Maybe. . . The CEO of Naughty Dog games gave a great presentation at GDC last year talking about how game graphics aren't going to get much better from this point on. They can't. We're at the point where the average person can't tell what "better" graphics would be anyway, and developers are struggling to achieve the sort of realism people demand as-is. The point is that next-gen games will need to rely on innovation instead of graphics very soon. The time of "another FPS with better graphics" is nearly dead. So if developers don't start innovating than we will indeed hit a slump as people get bored, and then perhaps the buisness end will adapt the way they need to.
Another possibility is "indy" games, by uber-small startup developers, the way we see indy movies now outside hollywood. Smaller audience, lower budget, not as big or flashy, but quality and innovative. Personally I'd love to work on something like that.

[peeweejd]

i think the slump in movies is due to people wiseing up... tv viewing is down (thanks to endless reality shows and will and grace type shit)... movies are down caus ethey are too expensive and the movies suck...

tvs and movies are being replaced by DVDs and games...

games wont hurt unless they start to suck, or get too expensive... so i guess the answer is yes, but not for the same reason... its not the licensed games that are gonna hurt, its the cost and quality...

[Beelzebud]

NOTE TO HOLLYWOOD:

Every other movie being made, or already released is either one of two things:

a) Remake of an older film
b) Comic Book to Movie

Until that changes, expect to see more of the same in ticket sales. Ever hear of OVER-SATURATION?

If I see one more remake, or comic movie, or remake of comic movie I'm going to puke.

There is a reason I've been buying up old Akira Kurosawa movies on DVD. They are good movies.

Price is another HUGE factor. Harrison Ford might not have any problems spending 100 dollars for a night out with the family, but tell that to someone making just above minimum wage...

[Roc Ingersol]

If you factor out the statistical abberation that was 'The Passion of the Christ' from last year's takes, the box office is up thus far in 2005.

Perhaps the film industry should realize that you don't get a Passion of the Christ or Titanic every year without trying. But why would they want to admit that being off statistically anamolous highs isn't exactly the same as a 'slump'.

How could you blame the internets if you were honest?

[Roc Ingersol]

Every other movie being made, or already released is either one of two things:

a) Remake of an older film
b) Comic Book to Movie

Why not just alter the list slightly to:

a) Remake of old film
b) Adaptation from another medium (tv, book, play, videogame)
c) Sequel
d) Knock-off

Then you can relax in realizing that the hollywood machine prefers proven franchises, and where those franchises come from, doesn't really matter. New ideas might tank, but even a stupendously bad 'Dukes of Hazard' remake will probably make its money back.

You know the only thing that will shake them from the trend? People not buying tickets. So long as dumb people buy tickets to the horrendously bad "Bewitched", just because it's called "Bewitched" and despite every critical warning to steer clear - Hollywood will stick to the formula.

Same goes for videogames, really.

[netcraazzy]

The article gives several good reasons why movie sales are down (DVDs, Home Theater and Prices) but is only really able to draw a parallel between games and movies with one example, a perceived lack of innovation. The problem is that innovation is one of those nebulous terms that means different things to different people, what's innovative to one person is rehashed junk to another. With games we are lucky that the industry is segmented quite a bit more than the movies industry so while one segment might be in a slump the others could be hitting their stride. With movies you have a handful of defined genres and two distinct markets, Box-office and Home Theater. With games we have the same predefined genres, although more of them but we have more markets (PC, console, handheld, cellphone/pda) While the traditional console market seems a little short on fresh new ideas right now I think that we are going to see the handheld market with it's lower development costs and high penetration rate become the place for developers to try out new ideas. The still small cell phone and PDA games market is also one that over time I believe will become very unique. Basically, while movies and games are both entertainment businesses I think the games industry is too new and has too many emerging markets to fall victim to the same slump as the movie industry any time soon.

[Wombat]

One of the things I think about the supposed lack of innovation in games is that there are only a limited number of new ideas, or really creative people to go around, so that in 1990, when there were only about 100 games a year you might expect 10 really interesting games, but now that there are 1000 games a year, there aren't 100 interesting games, it's still not much over 10.

That isn't perfectly expressed, but what I'm basically saying is that innovation can't be mass produced. It takes really creative people who are inspired, and there are never many of them.

[Mrbunchypants]

Anyother thing is that the only reason you go to the movies is to see the movie on the big screen. How many inovations has there been since the first movie?
They added food and thats about it. You go, you sit, you watch. But wait you can do all that at home. And with some of todays nice hometheaters you can get all that on a nice big couch with the wife or a few bud. If you need to go to the washroom? Hit pause. Need more beer? hit pause. Phone rings? Hit pause.

I live in Canada. and for just over two grand I can have this sounds system, (http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku_id=0665000FS10045090&catid=19701&logon=&langid=EN) and this TV. (http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku_id=0770HDS0010043270&catid=11299&logon=&langid=EN)

[if76]

Whenever I go to blockbuster to get a game I usually leave empty handed. Just a bunch of liscense games and GTA and Splinter Cell clones. If there were more games like Katamari Damacy or Psi Ops I'd be renting or buying a game EVERY SINGLE WEEK.

[Rommel]

should have been a $.50 pack of Mike & Ike.

What are you, nine?

[Evil Avatar]

What are you, nine?

In spirit, "Yes."

[Kelegacy]

Maybe the slump will happen when games become 60-70 bucks a piece and last 6 hours for a FPS. Maybe that will be a wakeup call that we need to stop jumping so deep into the new tech before it is readily affordable to develop...so the consumer wins and smaller devs can still afford develop.

[mister_slim]

One of the things I think about the supposed lack of innovation in games is that there are only a limited number of new ideas, or really creative people to go around, so that in 1990, when there were only about 100 games a year you might expect 10 really interesting games, but now that there are 1000 games a year, there aren't 100 interesting games, it's still not much over 10.
I think a large part is not the lack of creative people, but the lack of people who really understand the medium. I play a lot of games that demonstrate that the makers had only a minimal understanding of what makes a game fun, and how to use setting, art and gameplay to create an experience that is more than the sum of its parts. So we end up with many GTA clones that don't really understand the reasons for GTAs success, and have no new central idea to define their game and make it distinct.
Whenever I go to blockbuster to get a game I usually leave empty handed. Just a bunch of liscense games and GTA and Splinter Cell clones. If there were more games like Katamari Damacy or Psi Ops I'd be renting or buying a game EVERY SINGLE WEEK.
There are a lot of interesting games out there. I'm spending fifty bucks a month on online game rentals, with no shortage of things to try. The thing is that very few of them would be worth buying for full price.

[Heretic Machine]

I'd just like to point out that I don't believe innovation is dead in the Video Game industry. If anything, it's more alive than ever before. Am I the only one who remembers the days when nine out of ten video games were just side-scrolling platformer-shooters?

[B_Money]

What movie slump? Theater grosses are down, but Hollywood doesn't make it's money that way. The studios are making plenty on DVD sales, not to mention the foreign markets.

[Kelegacy]

I'd just like to point out that I don't believe innovation is dead in the Video Game industry. If anything, it's more alive than ever before. Am I the only one who remembers the days when nine out of ten video games were just side-scrolling platformer-shooters?

but now they are just 1st person shooters.

Not really, but pretty damned close. 9 out of 10 PC games is a FPS, 9 out of 10 games that ARENT FPS's are generic RTS games, and 9 out of 10 RPG's for PC are Diablo-inspired hack/slashers.

I wasn't a math major. :)