BreakfastMan said:
Yes, it does matter. Troma is not going to close if Paramount or Warner Brothers close. Why? Because Troma appeals to a niche that Warner Brothers and Paramount do not. People aren't going to stop buying Troma films if they can't get Paramount films anymore.
But like I said, this isn't about sales. We're not talking about games failing to sell.
We're talking about the fear shareholders would have if EA and Activision collapsed. We're talking about the investors who would see the collapse of EA and Activision like a warning that they, too, were about to lose money.
Even if publishers are not as tightly connected as banks, you can't expect EA and Activision to disappear without anyone taking notice. Their collapse would effect every industry they're part of.
So shareholders of other publishers losing money is a certainty. The question is, how many of them would want to stick around to see if they were going to lose it all, instead of selling?
BreakfastMan said:
This makes the assumption that all publishers are the same and focus their energy on putting out the same games, which is clearly not the case.
And it doesn't really need to be the case, for my point to stand. If people started buying less games, the first stock to show a noticeable movement would be Activision's, and then EA's.
Gaming is always under threat by other forms of entertainment, and with it being a luxury, it's subject to expendable income. So if expendable income dropped in major countries like the US, or other entertainment formats began to steal attention away from gaming, the stock to watch would be Activision's.
The kind of investor who owned stock in Square Enix, and ignored Activision's stock dropping in value, because "they don't make the same kind of games" is the kind of investor who loses a lot of their money.
BreakfastMan said:
Rachmaninov said:
If EA and Activision's stock starts to rise, it's fair to think that you'll see a rise all across the industry.
Not really. It depends on the reasons the stock is going up. If Activision's stock is increasing because people are buying more games in general, then it is fine to assume that everyone else's stock price is going to go up. If Activisions stock is increasing because it made another billion off of COD, it is ridiculous to assume that 2K, for instance, will get a boost to its stock, simply because someone else's stock went up.
It seems there was a miscommunication. I meant to say "If EA
and Activision's stocks start to rise, it's fair to think that you'll see a rise all across the industry." because whatever caused both stocks to rise would be about gaming in general, and what with them being the two biggest publishers, any trends in games as a whole would likely show in them first, and strongest.
BreakfastMan said:
-Video game publishers sell products, while banks offer services.
-Banks are highly connected to each other through trading of mortgages and securities. Video game publishers are not nearly as tightly connected.
-Banks depend on highly volatile sectors of the economy, housing loans, for a good chunk of revenue. Video game publishers are not.
-Banks sell the same thing. I can get a savings account, a checking account, or a home loan from any bank I set foot in. By comparison, I cannot get an FPS, a sports game, or an RPG at every publisher I get to.
-There is little variation between services that the banks sell. By contrast, there is massive variation between products that video game publishers sell.
-Banks make most of their money through investments. Video game publishers make most of their money from selling products.
The point I made bold is a good point. I agree that this would weaken my analogy.
But I don't see how the rest weaken the comparison. Yes, they are differences between the banking and publishing industries, that much is true, but since we're assuming the collapse of EA and Activision, I can't see the merits in the others.
Between EA and Activision, they make nearly every genre of game. EA are particularly entrenched in sports games, but they're a big name in RPGs, simulations, FPSes and RTSes. Activision are the kings of the FPS and MMORPG genres, with a fairly strong showing in action-adventure. If FIFA, Mass Effect, The Sims, Battlefield, Command & Conquer, Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and Madden NFL couldn't save them, why would lesser known titles in the same genres fare any better?
BreakfastMan said:
Doubtful, but we really aren't talking about shareholders abandoning all publishers, are we?
No. Just abandoning all but two.
Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo would survive, but be disinclined to publish more games, in case they suffered a similar fate, if they pressed it too far.
Bethesda and Valve would survive because they're not publicly traded, but they couldn't support the whole AAA market on their own.
BreakfastMan said:
That was because the industry was reliant on Atari for consoles themselves. Completely different situation.
I'm not sure how you can say that, when there were more than ten other consoles available at the time. Can you elaborate?