ESA: The Last Person Out Please Turn Off the Lights Edition


Lucasarts left The ESA today. It looks like Activision and Vivendi's withdrawal triggered the cascading effect suffered by E3 a few years back. The first pickle out of the jar is always the hardest.

I am sure Lucas's reasons for withdrawal were sound and the decision was thoughtful, perhaps The ESA is not what it used to be post Doug, but are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater? I stand by my earlier statement regarding the need for an industry organization charged with the responsibilities espoused by The ESA. Our business does not provide adequate lobbying at State or Federal level and we suffer for it. It is easy to see the anti game legislation and piracy issues which drew the publishers together to form The ESA, but what about the other issues which could be addressed through a stronger lobby? H1b visas, tax benefits provided by competing territories and who knows what else because no one is doing it? Now we see publishers are willing to withdraw if they do not get the service they want, but what will bring them back to a unified organization?

I am not advocating staying with The ESA if it no longer serves its purpose or merits the associated cost. I am however wondering what the withdrawing publishers are doing to build the organization which will merit their membership. I like to see all publishers involved in the organization and providing check and balances. Something new should be established as a smaller ESA may be worse than no ESA at all. If more publishers leave and an ever shrinking ESA lingers beyond its welcome in a HIllary Clintonesque manner, the remaining publishers will enjoy a disproportionate voice under the guise of an industry organization - ever get one of those BSA letters from the organization which is not mostly Microsoft? As The ESA membership fees are based on revenue, and Activision, Vivendi and Lucas left, EA, Ubi and Take Two's voices got louder. Granted these companies will agree on very few things, but the more withdrawal the closer this particular organization will come to a single publisher agenda. Worse yet, two organizations will divide the focus and impact of the organization.

It is impossible for any publisher, including the ones who withdrew to argue the necessity of an industry organization. So fellas, what's next?




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Media is Reporting the Game Industry is Over: Why are They Such Babies Edition

Image
My posting continues to move at a glacial pace. For a while, there was nothing new to say. Then, all of sudden, the world exploded with new ideas and I had no time to write. I attribute the plethora of new ideas - things other than marketing gaffes, publishers' hosing of developers, the need for independent finance and the folks who are saying they have it or xBox becoming cable - as a reflection of increased sensitivity attributable to too much travel and too little sleep. But bubbles are growing, companies are reacting, and CEOs seem to be turning into either Chicken Little or ostriches with heads in the sand. Some of the new stuff floating around in my head is: - The abandonment of seasoned game designers in favor of metric driven design - catering to metrics let you keep more players, but are those players worth keeping? - The complete lack of game sales data for XBL and PSN - Do the platforms really think they are helping us by cloaking sales in a shroud of mystery? - Th...
Read more

The Game Business Is A Year From Irrelevance:Where are Our Easy Riders and Raging Bulls Edition

Image
Every time I told people in suits and ties - or my parents - I was in the game business, they started to talk about kids. They viewed our business as the toy business. Games are for children. This was when I pulled out my silver bullet. I had The ESA's (then IDSA) latest report showing the average age of gamers. I started when it was 27. The "average age" went up a year each year, but was still a neat statistic when I could say 30 or 31. Whether it was directed at a school parent or an audience at a conference, It inevitably led to a dropped jaw and a "wow, I didn't know that." The industry instantly became relevant to their business. I haven't really paid much attention to this number because my proselytizing for the business was taken over by outlets like the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek and USA Today, which all have a larger reach than this blog or my speaking engagements. But this past week I saw some slides for an ESA speech indicatin...
Read more

We Should All Want Brash to Work: They Can't Help Themselves Edition

Image
Writing this blog makes me a nicer person in business meetings. It is cathartic. Before the blog, something like Mitch Davis' interview with Gamedaily would set me off and dominate the first 10 minutes of the next meeting I had. Now, I can write it, get it out, and move on. Thank you dear reader for your help and indulgence. It also explains why the post is a bit on the snarky side. The whole thing could be avoided if Mr. Davis, the CEO of the company, took responsibility for the company's actions rather than shirking responsibility and holding tight to plans the market has already rejected. I want Brash to work. We should all want Brash to work. With coverage in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, everyone who would ever think about putting significant amounts of money into the game business saw their story. Never has a company name been so appropriate as theirs in describing their securing of capital and approach to the game business. If Brash make it, we ...
Read more