The computer gaming industry has begun to export powerful products and technologies from its initial entertainment roots to a number of “serious” industries. Games are being adopted for defense, medicine, architecture, education, city planning, and government applications. Each of these industries is already served by an established family of companies that typically do not use games or the technologies that support them. The rapid growth in the power of game technologies and the growing social acceptance of these technologies has created an environment in which these are displacing other industry-specific computer hardware and software suites. This paper introduces five specific forces that compel industries to adopt game technologies for their core products and services. These five forces are computer hardware costs, game software power, social acceptance, other industry successes, and native industry experimentation. Together these influence the degree and rapidity at which game technologies are adopted in a number of industries. The military simulation industry is just one of the many industries that are being impacted by these technologies and the five forces are affecting it just as they are many other industries. The paper extends the concepts of simulation industry disruption that were introduced by the author in the Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation. Earlier papers have applied the innovation and disruption model of Clayton Christenson to the simulation industry and demonstrated that the industry was in the “process innovation” phase of Utterback’s innovation lifecycle model. This paper defines the forces that are driving these changes and indicates why these forces are undeniable and will permanently change the landscape of virtual and constructive military simulation products.

1. Five Forces Driving Game Technology Adoption Roger Smith U.S. Army PEO-STRI [email_address]

2. Game Technology Entry Tactical Iraqi Americas Army IEWTPT Tactical Questioning Full Spectrum Warrior AMBUSH!

3. Disruptive Innovation Model (Christensen, 1992 & 1997) Market-Years Product Performance Progress due to sustaining technologies Performance demanded at the low end of the market Performance demanded at the high end of the market Progress due to disruptive technologies Market disruption opportunity

4. Simulation Industry Disruption (Smith, 2005 & 2006) Squeezed Out Niche High End Share Low End Own the Market High-end Customer Demand D 0 = Virtual Trainer SIMNET CCTT OneSAF OLIVE D 1 = PC Games America’s Army Spearhead Market-Years Product Performance Figure 2 Low-end Customer Demand

5. Multiple Waves of Disruption (Smith, 2005 & 2006) Product Performance High-end Customer Demand D 0 = Virtual Trainer SIMNET CCTT OneSAF OLIVE D 1 = PC Games America’s Army Spearhead D 2 = Console Games Xbox Live D 3 = Web Services WBT FSW Market-Years Figure 3 Low-end Customer Demand D 4 = Wireless Systems

7. Stages of Adoption Mandatory Standard Recommended Practice Certified Applications Unregulated Spaces Niche Area