Short-Term Thinkers

The games biz seems to have a greater concentration of short-term thinkers than any other industry. Consider the timber industry, for example. These people are cutting down the forests that provide their livelihood. However, they recognize the problem and take steps to ensure their long-term survival: seedling plantings, selective logging, and so forth. They have not yet achieved full sustainability, but they do seem to be thinking at least a few decades into the future.

The same thing goes for all sorts of industries. Steel makers invest heavily in new technology that will not generate profits for years. MacDonald's funds a variety of research efforts in universities; quite a few industries provide serious financial support to education because they know that they will need well-educated workers in the next few decades. And of course, the research programs carried out within most high-tech companies typically consume 10% of profits.

Contrast this with the short sightedness of the games biz. I was unable to locate a single games publisher supporting any kind of long-term research effort. A few games publishers that are embedded inside larger companies, such as at Microsoft and Sony, can point to some corporate-level funding projects for education, but none of these are devoted to games issues. Here is an industry with gross sales of $6 billion that cannot scrape up any money to support any kind of long-term research or education. The get-rich-quick mentality has such a solid hold on the minds of the games industry that nobody is thinking about the long term.

Consider, for example, the problem of violence in games. For purposes of this discussion, let us consider this solely as a public-relations problem. How does the industry address the problem? By dismissing the complaints contemptuously, wrapping themselves in the First Amendment, and spending money on lobbyists. This kind of stonewalling behavior just doesn't work in the long run as many other industries have learned the hard way. If they had wisdom, industry executives would create a steady stream of high-profile "noble games" games that embody messages that capture universal admiration. True, such games will not make much money. They might even lose some money. But in the long run, games like The Sims do more for industry public relations than stonewalling.

The contrast between the gutless conservatism of games industry executives and the considered risk taking of Hollywood executives is striking. The decision makers who make the basic decisions about what games to publish seem to think on a level one notch above accountants: They look at last year's sales and use those numbers to choose this year's products. Why do stockholders pay these people executive salaries for this kind of middle-manager decision making?

Hollywood, by contrast, makes product decisions on a more rational basis. Sure, they use focus groups and accountants in the process, but they factor a lot of other considerations into their big spending decisions. Sometimes an executive will have nothing more than a gut feeling that a movie idea, while unorthodox, will sell. The history of Hollywood glitters with long-shot projects that hit big. It's not that these people are always right; their history includes plenty of big-budget flops like Heaven's Gate and Waterworld. That's why it's called "risk." One way or another, Hollywood as an industry is able to generate a steady stream of unorthodox ideas that blossom into new product lines. The games industry has not.

Hollywood uses a pyramid system for generating product. At the base of the pyramid is a large collection of movie-making wannabees: bright young talents eager to show their skills. Part of the genius of the Hollywood system is that it has found ways to keep these people alive and to sample their talents. Those who pass the lowest-level cut find a variety of funding sources to help them continue to ply their trade. There's not much money, but it's enough to keep them in business. The more talented individuals are able to rise to the top of the pyramid, gaining access to greater amounts of funding. From the point of view of the individual, the system is brutal and often unfair. But from the point of view of the industry as a whole, the system is successful in providing a steady supply of new ideas and new talent. The games industry has nothing remotely like it. I don't wish to romanticize an ugly and ferociously competitive industry; Hollywood has plenty of warts. But on this one problem of fostering creative experimentation, the games biz has lots to learn from Hollywood.