This blog post examines the core factors that determine genuine success in the technology-driven, fiercely competitive gaming market through various case studies.
Since the debut of the simple tennis video game Pong, games have grown increasingly elaborate thanks to technological advancements, with expressive limitations steadily fading. If Pong represents the symbolic starting point, games have since evolved in multiple dimensions—graphics, sound, storytelling—forming a new era of entertainment culture. This evolution captured widespread attention, establishing games as a medium that brings fun into daily life. This led to a gradual increase in the population enjoying games, and the game market grew rapidly.
As the scale of the game market expanded, numerous companies jumped into the game industry. While this brought diversity to game development, it also led to overheated competition, causing the market to reach saturation. The game industry reached saturation long ago, but as a result, countless games vanished shortly after release or disappeared without gaining attention. For a game to survive, it requires more than just flashy graphics or the latest technology; it needs original, immersive content and a distinct appeal. In today’s landscape, where many games are produced with similar concepts, becoming a game remembered by gamers has become an absolute necessity, demanding a firm sense of identity and fun.
Amidst this crowded, competitive market, only a handful of games truly stand out. Successful games spawn ongoing series that generate stable revenue, drawing gamers’ attention with each new release. Conversely, unsuccessful games vanish without even leaving a name behind. To compete in this reality, games must constantly evolve. Notably, even the games surviving today have evolved differently from their predecessors, and succeeding in the current market demands yet another wave of innovation. Ultimately, to create a successful game that leaves a lasting impression on the public, it must offer a distinct kind of enjoyment or present a freshness not seen before.
One reason Nintendo has maintained its unique position in the game market for so many years lies in a simple principle: the belief that “games should be fun.” This proposition sounds obvious, yet many game companies become overly fixated on technical achievements or rushing to showcase the latest technology, often losing sight of the game’s fundamental fun. For instance, for a time, many games were developed focusing intensely on flashy graphics. While they may have succeeded in grabbing initial interest, they ultimately failed to retain users long-term. This resulted from overlooking the fact that flashy appearances alone cannot guarantee fundamental fun.
Looking back at the game market before Nintendo, the case of the Atari console offers an important lesson even today. In the early 1980s, Atari enjoyed explosive popularity and became synonymous with video games at the time, but it declined rapidly due to failures in quality control. Atari’s games gradually lost their appeal, and many game developers indiscriminately churned out low-quality titles, thinking, “Anyway, only one out of many games needs to be a hit.” Ultimately, the severe decline in game quality led to gamer distrust, triggering a massive boycott and the collapse of the game market. This event became known as the ‘Atari Shock,’ dealing such a severe blow that the game market shrank by over 90%.
Amidst this overall slump in the game market, Nintendo seized this crisis as an opportunity, launching the Famicom (Family Computer), an 8-bit game console, and introducing a new system. To produce games for the Famicom, developers had to undergo pre-screening by Nintendo and obtain a license. This wasn’t merely a strategy for Nintendo to monopolize the console market; it was to prevent low-quality games from appearing on the Famicom, thereby ensuring a high standard of game quality. Thanks to this policy, Famicom games generally guaranteed relatively high polish and fun, which greatly contributed to Nintendo establishing a stable position in the market.
Nintendo not only reviewed third-party games but also poured its full efforts into developing entertaining games in-house. It created an environment where developers could creatively propose ideas, aiming to produce games that would captivate gamers. These efforts culminated in the creation of games like ‘Donkey Kong’ and ‘Super Mario’. These weren’t just games; they became globally popular ‘killer content’ that defined Nintendo. This killer content played a decisive role in Nintendo significantly expanding its market share.
While the Famicom was at the height of its popularity, Sega entered the competition by launching the Genesis, a new 16-bit console. While the Genesis boasted technically superior graphics, sound, and performance, it ultimately failed to surpass Nintendo due to a lack of killer content that delivered core fun. Attempts to catch up with the Famicom through hardware expansions like the CD-ROM drive and the 32X only seemed to focus on technological showmanship, failing to provide gamers with genuine enjoyment.
The cases of Nintendo, Atari, and Sega clearly demonstrate how crucial the balance between technology and fun is for a game’s success. Games are fundamentally a medium for providing entertainment; no matter how technically accomplished they are, they struggle to win over the masses if they aren’t fun. Even though today’s game market has changed from the past, the essential elements a successful game must possess remain unchanged. While the way we enjoy games has evolved with the advent of computer technology, online systems, and smartphones, the core remains delivering ‘fun’ to people.
However, looking at the current Korean game market, MMORPGs dominate, and many games are released with similar concepts repeated over and over. Consequently, they often appear more like rehashes of existing games than truly new offerings. At a time when we should be learning from Atari’s past failures, some game developers still choose the easy path. Rather than presenting differentiated games through new challenges, they often seem trapped within existing frameworks, merely riding market trends. This approach makes it difficult to earn gamers’ long-term affection and carries a high risk of eventual market rejection.
I once heard a lecture by a game company where they stated, “If even a quarter of the games we release succeed, that’s a successful outcome.” This strategy of creating many similar games in the hope that one might succeed evokes the causes of the Atari Shock. Now that the game market is even more competitive and sophisticated, an approach that prioritizes creative planning and the inherent fun of the game itself is essential. Creating a successful game should be achieved through meticulous planning and unique appeal, rather than relying on mere luck.
