What makes video games stand out from other entertainment genres?  Why aren’t music and film sales following a similar trend?  Let’s compare costs of a new video game to a ticket for a recently released movie:

$10 for a 2 hour, single showing of a movie in the theatre
(not including popcorn)

vs.

$50 for 40+ hours of entertainment in a video game that is accessible at any time.

Granted, these numbers vary depending on the individual medium, but it is interesting to compare in terms of cost per hour and lasting appeal.

Another useful benefit for gamers is in-store credit or even cash back for trade-ins. This specific market is what keeps giant retail chains like Gamestop on top.  Once you have played your game to its fullest extent and when your playtime starts to exceed the number of hours you slept that week (yikes), simply trade it in for credit towards a new game.  Even online retailers like Amazon have this policy now.  If the game is in reasonable condition, Amazon provides the shipping and you get a gift card in return.  Many movie retailers offer a similar service, but companies like Gamestop will buy used movies as well!

Much like Netflix and other online rental services, video games can now be accessed from anywhere through services like GameFly or NumbThumb. If you aren’t one for paying monthly fees for renting, game systems now incorporate game marketplaces where you can purchase a variety of individual titles. The Xbox Live Marketplace has games from generations past and current hits that are fully downloadable onto your hard drive. There are similar features in both the PS3 Store and Wii Shopping Channel.  This interactivity is what makes video game consoles so successful.  Who needs a DVD player or CD burner when you can have all in one simple package?  A video gaming platform is no longer JUST for playing video games.

Still, the question remains about why the video game industry is so successful in relation to other forms of entertainment.  Daniel Ernst, an analyst for Hudson Square Research responded to this question earlier this year by stating:

‘Consumers are increasingly in control of their media experience – narrowing in on what they consume, where they consume it, and when they consume it. We see interactive entertainment as an extension of that control, where the protagonist, settings, and outcomes are dictated not by the author or screenwriter, but by the players themselves.’

I think that Ernst answers this question completely.  This concept of interactivity is becoming increasingly critical in our rapidly developing world.

Most of the success of the video game industry over the past few years can be attributed to bundle packages and Nintendo’s excellent marketing campaign to make the Wii enticing to all age demographics. Needless to say, it worked. 2008 sales in video games alone surpassed over $21 billion (in the U.S.) – with over half of that gross figure belonging to Nintendo’s Wii alone.  In terms of game sales, Guitar Hero/Rock Band made up around 16% of total revenue during last year’s holiday season and Wii Play sold over 5 million copies.

Recently, the sales of the video game industry have started to decline, but this is somewhat expected.  This Summer has not seen many new ‘big’ titles like the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2008.  However, expect this to change drastically as Nintendo begins to populate the online store for their newly released DSi and highly anticipated titles start flooding the marketplace like Assassin’s Creed 2, Mass Effect 2, Final Fantasy XIII, WoW Cataclysm, Pokemon Heart Gold/Soul Silver (US), and Star Wars: The Old Republic.

Expect big things as we enter 2010.

We’re reaching a critical point where the future of the internet is now in question and we may end up with something very different than what we have now.  Imagine a United States where Comcast or AT&T could block any websites they deem inappropriate or “bandwidth heavy” or even give faster access to content they own and control.  Imagine sitting down to download some music from iTunes or watch TV on Hulu only to find that your ISP requires a higher, unconventional fee to access that kind of content.

Fairness and open standards are what allowed the internet to become the economic powerhouse it is today.  In order for future innovation and entrepreneurship to occur, we must support net neutrality.   Please contact your local congressperson or senator and ask them to preserve the open internet.

I just came across this video of a keynote he did for a Web 2.0 expo – watch it.  Please.  It will inspire you, fire you up and kick your ass.

IS THERE ANYONE NOT OWNING STOCK IN THESE COMPANIES THAT THINKS THIS IS A GOOD IDEA?

So you thought tickets had skyrocketed in the last 5 years?  Get ready to pray for a ticket in the cheap seats, because I don’t personally know anyone who’s buying $2,000 to see The Boss.

Maybe technology will be the savior here, and we’ll stream the live event to our home theaters…. but then again, buying the DVD isn’t the same as seeing the show.  I’m sinking into a dark place here…. I’m not the guy who “on average sees 1.5 shows per year” (as Live Nation research suggests)… I’m a FAN first and foremost, and news of placing a lien on my house to see a few shows in 2009 is ludicrous.

I guess this dark time in America won’t have a soundtrack.

For those that know me,  you know I have worked in the digital marketing arms of both Live Nation (Ultrastar Entertainment/MusicToday) and Ticketmaster (echomusic, then echo, then… helloecho?).  In fact, leaving echo to begin working at live nation caused a bit of a stir, as technically I was headed to straight to the competition.

Having seen the landscape from both sides of the fence, I can tell you these two don’t play nice.  From the first day of the Ticketmaster/echo merger not one kind word was spoken about MusicToday or Live Nation. In my seven months working for Live Nation, not one kind word was spoken about Ticketmaster.  In fact, more times than not, it was how much more ROBUST the Live Nation (see MusicToday) ticketing engine would be when launched.  As seen earlier this week, Phish fans aren’t impressed with the new engine.  These two giants have been trying to one-up and out do one another for as long as they’ve been frienemies.  Hoping to one day break free from ones the reliance on the other, and finally just a month ago, there was complete and total separation.

So now we reach a crossroad.  Maybe these rivals depend on each other more than they ever thought.  Live Nation masters in promoting their tours, they own some of the largest venues in the world, and can basically make an international tour happen… but their ticketing engine is apparently bullocks.   Ticketmaster sells tickets (and adds a lovely surcharge to the fans delight), and they’re good at it… but what venues are they going to sell tickets in if they miss out on all the sheds and major tours?

So great, merge, stop trying to destroy one another… but does a Live Nation / Ticketmaster merger give fans any option?

The beauty of the Live Nation ticketing platform was to go head to head with Ticketmaster and beat them where they are most weak the public perception on those *bleepin* service charges….. So what happens next?  A merger?  One option for the fan, a near monopoly on tickets, touring, venues, and promotion?  Not to mention the resurgence of those damn “360 deals”, and dozens of “reunion tours” (and next to no new tours featuring new artists).

How does this scenario benefit the fan? A merger of these two companies completely rules out the idea of competition

Looks like we should get used to seeing the Rolling Stones on stage, with this model they’ll be playing sold out venues well into their 90′s.  But don’t expect any new music sensations, a Live Nation Ticketmaster would only cater to the megatours, with a mega margin already built in for the taking.