4 ms·
>To put it in another way. Gaming (put together): not much of an industry, compared to IT/mobile sales. Why are you comparing gaming to IT/mobile? It should be
by ksk 13y ago
>To put it in another way. Gaming (put together): not much of an industry, compared to IT/mobile sales.
Why are you comparing gaming to IT/mobile? It should be compared to other entertainment industries. It has already surpassed Hollywood in terms of revenue in the US ($17bil vs $9bil in 2011). Having a dominant product in the gaming industry begets a lot of influence.
Worldwide, The VG industry generates around $70 billion in revenue (excluding mobile gaming). In comparison the movie industry - (all countries combined, not just hollywood releases) generates around 120 billion.
>Every gamer could as well only use an Xbox, and it still wouldn't matter much for the kind of discussion we're having about Microsoft.
Please explain what you mean..
- coldtea 13y ago>Why are you comparing gaming to IT/mobile? It should be compared to other entertainment industries. Because we're discussing a company, Microsoft, that has most of its business and revenues in the IT/mobile space and a small part of it in gaming. And I want to see if the gaming market is as large and important as the main market the company is involved in. >Please explain what you mean.. I mean that even if Microsoft was the most succesful and relevant gaming company in the world, it would still not mean its relevant in the IT space. And MS's relevance in the IT space (compared to the nineties) is what Paul Graham's post we're discussing is all about.