We have both been using the term "grow the industry" and I just assumed that we were using the term synonymously when after reading this reply that this might not be the case. So, can we first determine whether we are both using the same definition? I will try to be as objective as possible and try to avoid putting any spin on this whatsoever, I hope that in good faith you can do the same.
So, I Googled;
"what does the term growing the industry mean?"
The result comes up as "growth industry", copy and pasted below un-edited.
This is around about how I understood it and was using the term. The industry is growing if there is a significant increase in revenue driven by higher demand, (now this is possibly where we may fork) and this higher demand can come from an increase in engagement of existing customers or from an increase in the number of customers. Now if we are talking about industry wide this doesn't mean poaching customers from other competitors. To qualify as industry growth these numbers would have to come from outside existing customer numbers. do we agree so far?
I agree totally that what you wrote is a legitimate formulation of what constitutes growth, but I'd argue that as we're essentially talking about art/entertainment there's more to it than simple economic metrics. The cultural aspect is very important for sustainability and depth/breadth of audience enthusiasm in non-essential goods.
Above is industry agnostic but here are a few thoughts of mine (again trying to keep it objective) from this relating specifically to the games industry;
An increase in customers in the games industry means widening the appeal to people who were previously uninterested or previously excluded. They may have been previously uninterested because the types of experiences didn't appeal and they may have previously been uninterested or excluded due to the financial cost or lack of availability. There are many reasons why this could be the case. The nub of this though is about bringing in new people. Are we still in agreement?
So, how to do that and again i'll try and keep it broad.
Lower barriers to entry
making current products and services more accessible/appealing
increase appeal to a wider range of demographics
new experiences
expanding into untapped territories/markets
Are there any i've missed?
As someone who's been gaming since the 1970's I'd counter that gaming has always had relatively low-barriers to entry. I don't believe its ever been prohibitively expensive, and in fact I suspect that when inflation and income levels are factored in its at worst remained fairly static cost-wise over the decades. Its hard to quantify because the market's always been multi-dimensional, and obviously technology has greatly broadened the range of gaming devices available.
Your other points I agree are all positives, although there's a lot of wiggle-room on their exact meaning! Which is where I feel we're not on the same page exactly.
For example, I feel like your opinion is that services like Gamepass are a net positive for both the industry and the audience, and your belief is rooted (at least in part) in the factors listed above.
I don't find that take (if indeed, it is where you stand) to be ignorant or unreasonable, I just disagree with the position.
Now, I am not going to elaborate on these points any further in this post as that is adding bias and subjectivity that we can disagree about, I just wanted to try and set some common ground to move forward from. AGAIN, I have tried to be as objective and bias free as possible here and if in your reply you continue the whole Sony = good / Microsoft = bad routine then we are done.
I don't think subjectivity is avoidable to be truthful. I try and support my arguments with objective observations, but ultimately the cumulative picture is always going to be a subjective take because we're trying to predict future outcomes! No crystal ball here, all I can do is look at past and present performance and try and extrapolate forwards.
I'm not, and never have tried to make an argument that Sony are "good" and MS are "bad". As I wrote in an earlier post I don't fault MS in the slightest for their chosen strategy, taking a radically disruptive approach is the right move for them.
I just happen to believe that a number of elements of their business plan are not broadly beneficial to the industry and gaming culture generally. These are things I've believed for years, and are not reactionary to the fact that MS is employing them.
For example I've always believed massive corporate consolidation is bad because when you have so many eggs in the same basket it becomes more about maintaining the integrity of the basket than items contained within. Similarly "a-la-carte" services have always concerned me because I feel like they cheapen the perceived value of the product, its an effect I've seen many times over the years going back to 80's when I saw what happened with people in the "warez" scene. Abundance blunts enthusiasm, it doesn't sharpen it.
so they get more love but don't get it twisted I game on multiple devices including Series X.
SenjutsuSage
and Jez Corden. Which I doubt but stranger things have happened.
" very quickly. Quite telling really.
