1.
CEO Survey Report of Japanese Video
Game Developers
Mirko Ernkvist
February
2012
©2012 Mirko Ernkvist
Email: mirko.ernkvist@econhist.gu.se
To cite this publication:
Ernkvist, M. (2012). CEO Survey Report of Japanese Video Game Developers, Working Paper, The University of
Gothenburg.
Mirko Ernkvist is a Researcher at the Centre for International Business Studies, the University of Gothenburg,
Sweden. During 2010-2011 he was a Visiting Scholar at the Interfaculty Initiative in Information Studies, University of
Tokyo. Dr. Ernkvist holds a PhD in Economic History from the University of Gothenburg. His research is concerned
with entrepreneurship, development and innovation strategies in creative industries.
Acknowledgement. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are entirely those of the author.
This research was pursued by the author as a visiting scholar under a JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowship for Foreign
Researchers at the University of Tokyo, Baba Game Lab. I would like to thank Professor Akira Baba, Professor
Masahito Fujihara, Zeng Qi, Sumika Ito and the other members of the lab for their help and support during this project.

2.
2
Table
of
content
INTRODUCTION
3
SURVEY
DESIGN
4
REFERENCE
LITERATURE
ON
SURVEY
DESIGN
4
RESPONDENTS
4
SURVEY
SAMPLE
5
RESPONSE
RATE
5
ITEMS
SURVEYED
5
AIM
OF
THE
SURVEY
REPORT
7
STRUCTURE
OF
THE
REPORT
7
INTERPRETATION
OF
THE
RESULTS
7
FINANCIAL
PERFORMANCE
10
EXTERNAL
KNOWLEDGE
SOURCES
IN
VIDEO
GAME
DEVELOPMENT
13
THE
ROLE
OF
USERS
IN
VIDEO
GAME
DEVELOPMENT
16
GAME
DEVELOPMENT
TOOL
USAGE
18
VIDEO
GAME
DEVELOPERS
AS
OUTSOURCING
SERVICE
SUPPLIERS
AND
PROVIDERS
20
BUSINESS
TIES
WITH
PUBLISHERS
22
GAME
DEVELOPMENT
AND
INNOVATION
STRATEGY
24
ANTICIPATED
AND
ACTUAL
GAME
DEVELOPMENT
TIME
24
ABANDONED
GAME
DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS
25
SELF-­‐PUBLISHED
GAMES
26
IP-­‐OWNERSHIP
IN
GAME
DEVELOPMENT
27
CEO
BACKGROUND
AND
DEMOGRAPHY
29
CONCLUSION
AND
DISCUSSION
31
REFERENCES
34

3.
3
Introduction
This is a report of some of the results from a survey conducted in aim to gain more knowledge of
management and innovation strategies of Japanese video game developers. The descriptive statistical
results give quantitative indication of characterizing features of video game development, some of
which confirms issues that previously has been expressed by individual game CEO’s in public
remarks, some which might provide new knowledge. As often is the case in statistical surveys, it
describes the quantity and amount of phenomena, rather than the underlying why and how. To
account for this would have required a large number of additional interviews, something that have
not within the scope of this project.
The survey was sent out during the summer of 2011 to the CEO’s of all Japanese video game
developers with at least 3 years of business experience.
I would like to express my gratitude towards all the CEO’s that have shared their time and
knowledge for the survey report. This survey report would not have been possible without their kind
help. As in all survey results, the extent to which we can produce reliable results and the opportunity
to test more complex hypothesis is dependent on the cooperativeness of respondents.
The survey and this report has been part of a JSPS Postdoctoral Research Project for foreign
researchers. I am grateful for the valuable help and assistance in various part of the project from
Professor Akira Baba, Professor Masahito Fujihara, Zeng Qi and Sumika Ito. The kind cooperation
from the survey pilot test companies and industry experts is also acknowledged. Despite effort of
proofreading and checking the results, there is no guarantee that there might be errors of factual or
judgmental nature in the report. I personally hold the responsibility for any potential mistakes or
factual inaccuracies in this report.
Mirko Ernkvist

4.
4
Survey
Design
Reference
literature
on
survey
design
Established research indicates that business surveys to executives and upper management at firms are
some of the most challenging for academic researchers to pursue in terms of achieving a high
response rate (Bartholomew & Smith, 2006; Baruch & Holtom, 2008; Cycota & Harrison, 2002,
2006). Among the factors contribute to this challenge is the limited time that CEO’s has to their
disposal, the lack of an established social network between researchers and the respondents, the
challenges to motivate CEO survey participation and the layers of hierarchy in the organization that
makes it difficult to reach to the CEO.
In an effort to get a higher response rate, the current survey has followed principles from the
“Tailored Design Method” (Dillman, Smyth & Christian, 2009), involving specific principles when
crafting the survey question, the survey design, layout and implementation. In accordance to the
method, a five-step survey method was used consisting of (1) pre approach letter, followed by the (2)
survey letter, (3) first reminder notice, (4) second reminder and (5) final contact through either phone
or email (Table
1). These steps in the survey took place during the period June-August, 2011.
Table
1: Steps in the survey process
Survey steps and time plan for
distribution
Distribution method for each company Time of distribution
1.PAL (Pre Approach Letter) Mail with letter 4th week of June 2011
2. Cover Letter with survey attached
(2 weeks after step 1)
Mail with cover letter, survey form and
prepaid response envelope.
1st week of July 2011
3. First reminder: Thank you letter,
no survey attached (2 weeks after step
2)
Mail with letter 2nd week of July 2011
4. Second reminder: letter, with
survey attached (2 weeks after step 3)
Mail with letter 1st week of August 2011
5. Final contact though phone or
email
(using a different mode of
communication).
Email (with attached survey) or reminder
phone call
2nd-4th week of August 2011
Respondents
The survey was addressed specifically to the CEO’s of Japanese video game developers, using a
database of Japanese game developers developed for another research project as a starting point
(Fujihara, 2010). The database was developed and updated though information from each companies
Internet homepage to incorporate additional variables (including CEO name, game platforms active

5.
5
on as developer, company founding year). This allowed the survey to specifically address Japanese
video game developers (companies active in development with packaged games on handheld and/or
console platforms).
The survey questionnaire was pilot tested with game industry CEO’s and industry experts, leading to
some alterations of design, questions and wording.
Survey
sample
Due to the surveys focus on business activities during the last 3 FY, video game developers that had
been established 2009 or later were not included in the survey. A few companies that recently had
gone out of business or otherwise erroneously included in the database were also secluded from the
survey process. The survey was distributed to a final set of 289 Japanese video game developers.
Only companies engaged in video game development were included in the survey. This excluded
company that only were engaged in other types of the broader category of “digital game” industry
(arcade games, PC games, mobile games).
Response
rate
74 CEO’s responded to the survey, representing a response rate of 25.6%. The response rate was
relatively high in comparison to other CEO surveys (Bartholomew & Smith, 2006; Baruch &
Holtom, 2008; Cycota & Harrison, 2002, 2006). Some items in the survey received lower response
rate, presumably due to perceived confidentiality reasons from responding companies.
Items
surveyed
The choices of question and the distribution of topics in the survey were made with references to the
respondents (CEO’s) and the planned dissemination of the research results. The areas of coverage
are summarized in Figure 1 and a more detailed list of items is described in Appendix
1.

6.
6
Figure
1
Survey
areas
of
coverage
Survey
areas
of
coverage
CEO
Background
&
demography
Firm
Background
&
demography
Game
development
&
innovation
strategies
Technology
usage
Information
sources
&
market
feedback
Financial
performance

7.
7
Aim
of
the
survey
report
The report mainly provides descriptive findings of the survey. There are a number of annual reports
with quantitative data of the game market in Japan that is published annually, e.g. by CESA, Media
Create and Enterbrain. However, the information regarding the supply side in the form of game
developers is more limited. In particular, there is a lack of data regarding the large number of
medium sized and small video game developers in the Japanese video game development ecosystem.
Previous academic research surveys of Japanese game developers include a study of HRM (Human
Resource Management) (Fujihara, 2010) and game companies in-house versus outsourced
development strategies (Shintaku, Tanaka, and Yanagawa, 2003).
To the author’s knowledge, this is the first industry wide survey to CEO’s of Japanese game
developers. The aim of the report is to provide descriptive results of the current status of Japanese
video game developers in the following areas:
• Technology usage in development
• Knowledge sources for game development
• Application of user feedback methods in game development
• Financial performance of game developers
• Game development strategies
• Business relationships with publishers
• CEO demography & background
Structure
of
the
report
The areas listed above are analyzed in their own separate chapter of the report. The chapters begin
with a “Background” section, briefly presenting the research area in its larger frame, with reference
to some selected references (if applicable). This is followed by a “Result” section, in which the survey
results are presented and analyzed.
Interpretation
of
the
results
There are many sources of error and biases, some of which are applicable to survey research in
general and some which are specific to CEO surveys. Detailed discussions of all of these are not

8.
8
within the scope of this report. However, below is a description of some of the more important
sources of error and bases, including the research design strategies applied to account for them.
Representativeness
Due to the comparatively low response-rate of most CEO surveys, they are often prone to problems
regarding how representable the responding sample is to the general population (in this case the
video game development industry). As discussed, the survey has tried to limit this problem by
adopting various strategies to increase the response rate. Nevertheless, the issue of representativeness
remains one of the major sources of potential bias and error when interpreting and generalizing
results from this report.
Terminology
and
interpretation
error
Diverging interpretation or misunderstanding of the surveys terminology provides a potential source
of error and bias. Some terms in the video game industry do not have a coherent definition. The
survey has tried to handle this issue by several strategies. For example, efforts have been made to:
• Identify ambiguous terms in the design and pilot-test of the survey.
• Use survey terms that are close to the terms commonly used in the industry (rather than
terms which might be more commonly used in an academia).
• Write out definition of terms and in some cases examples in connection to the questions.
• Define the key term “video game” clearly at the start of the survey.1
• Remove survey responses apparently based on erroneous understanding of the questions
from the survey results.
Memory
recall
error,
sensitive
information,
cognitive
complexity
Certain types of survey question are more prone than other for memory recall errors, biases due to
question being perceived as sensitive information or errors due to questions that are too cognitively
complex/demanding.
In terms of memory recall errors, the questions have been limited to the last 3FY. The survey has
tried to avoid or reformulate question of such nature that prone to memory recall errors in the
questionnaire design.
In terms of sensitive information, some questionnaire items are likely to have received lower
response rate as a result of the, being perceived as confidential or sensitive to reveal. This has e.g.
1 Although efforts have been made to define the term video game, a few responded have included downloadable games

9.
9
likely been the case for the questions related to company financial performance, game titles
developed and some items of development strategy. Due to the lower response ratio of these
questions, they should be interpreted more cautiously. In an effort to try to account for the low
response rate of financial items, the report has collected complementary data from two external
corporate financial databases.
In terms of cognitive complexity/demands, respondent could have regarded some questionnaire
items as too cognitively demanding or complex to give an exact or correct response. The survey has
tried to limit this problem through the feedback during the design and pilot test of the survey.
However, it is notable that some questions might be more cognitively demanding than other,
especially fore larger firms with large-scale operations and development activities.

10.
10
Financial
performance
Background
The current survey has taken place in a context characterized by challenging economic environments
for Japanese video game developers, both at the supply and demand. At the demand side, shipments
to both the domestic and international market have been declining in recent years (Figure
2). At the
supply side, production economics has been challenging with increasing development costs of game
software (CESA, 1998-2011). In addition to these industry factors, Japanese video game companies
also had to cope with the general macroeconomic challenges that have faced the Japan during this
time.2
It has been a lack of data regarding how the larger ecosystem of Japanese video game developers
have been able to handle the challenges the industry has faced in terms of financial performance.3
The current report had the aim to measure the financial performance of the ecosystem of Japanese
video game developers.
Figure
2
Japanese
video
game
market,
1996-­‐2010
Source:
CESA
Games
White
Paper
(1997-­‐2011)
2 E.g. factors such as the strengthening of the Japanese yen, the unfavorable demographic development in Japan and the
challenging development of domestic consumption.
3 While financial performance data regarding the larger publicly listed video game companies’ financial performance is
readily available, the situation for medium-sized and smaller video game developers is less well-known (besides opinions
expressed by individual developers).
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Million
Yen
Domestic
Japanese
market
shipments
Total
international
exports
Exports
to
North
America
(US
+Canada)
Exports
to
Europe

11.
11
Results
of
financial
performance
from
TSR
and
Teikoku
Databank
The databases used to collect financial performance data for Japanese video game developers have
been two corporate financial databases: TSR (Tokyo Shoko Research) and Teikoku Databank. By
combining these two corporate databases to the dataset of video game developers, it has been
possible to report the financial performance data from slightly more than half of the companies from
the database of Japanese video game developers (n=289) (Table
2). This alternative was preferred
over reporting data collected in the survey form as it was able to cover a larger sample of Japanese
game companies and limited the potential errors and biases from self-reported financial performance
data. 4
The financial data reported from the database are profit margin (profit/revenues) of the companies.
When interpreting the data, it should be noted that this measure include the profit margin for the
entire company in question which might also include other business activities than video game
development.
Data was collected for the two latest years in order to also be able to provide the data for a two-year
period. This measure of financial performance could provide a more comprehensive account of
financial performance, taking into account the fluctuation in revenues and profits that could take
place over the lifecycle of video game platforms.5
Table
2:
Financial
performance
for
Japanese
video
game
developers
as
reported
in
Teikoku
Databank
and
TSR
Last reported company
FY
Second last reported
company FY
Last 2 reported company
FY
Mean Profit Margin (%) -2.59 -4.68 -1.82
Median Profit Margin (%) 0.86 1.22 0.90
Percentage of companies
with positive profit margin
(profit margin >0%)
54.8 56.2 54.7
N (Share of companies in
the databank which
provided data though
Teikoku Databank or TSR)
157 (55.0%) 169 (58.5%) 150 (51.9%)
4 The survey also collected financial performance data by asking companies to report the sales and operating income
during the last 3 FY in order to analyze return of sales (ROS; operational income/revenues). However, response ratio for
these financial items was relatively low. It has also been noted in the research literature that CEO self-reporting of
financial performance data has some challenges in terms of reliability. Accordingly, this raise question regarding the
reliability and how representable the financial performance data reported from the survey was. Based on this, it was
decided to only report the financial data collected from the TSR and Teikoku Databank in this report.
5 Within this context, the financial performance reported concerns a time period in the middle/later stages of the lifecycle
of the current video game platform generation. This is likely to be the more profitable period, as the period during
platform generation shifts involves high R&D costs.

12.
12
The result confirms the picture of a relatively challenging business climate for Japanese video game
developers.6
The mean profit margin for the studied sample of companies was negative, both for the
most recent reported company fiscal year (-2.59%) and the second most recently reported company
fiscal year (-4.68%). Median profit margin was slightly positive (0.86% and 1.22% respectively).
Furthermore, almost half of the companies do not pass break-even in terms of profit margin. During
the most recent reported company FY, 54.8% of the companies reported a positive profit margin
(>0%). During the second most recently reported company FY, 56.2% of the companies reported a
positive profit margin.
6 The sample has certain bias in terms of company size. The Japanese video game developers that it has not been possible
to collect financial data from are predominantly smaller video game developers. Hence, the data could be interpreted as
more representative for medium size and larger video game developers in Japan.

13.
13
External
knowledge
sources
in
video
game
development
Background:
Knowledge
sources
and
video
game
development
Each industry relies on its own specific external knowledge base for product development. This
points towards the recent emphasis within the field of economic geography of examining the
different knowledge bases of different industry contexts (Asheim, Coenen, and Vang, 2007). As an
industry both high on creative elements as well as technology, the video game industry could best be
described as an industry in the intersection between a creative- and a technology-intensive
engineering knowledge-base. Accordingly, we could expect the video game industry to be oriented
towards the general features of both the “symbolic” knowledge base that characterizes many creative
industries and the “synthetic” knowledge base that characterize the technology-base of
engineering/technology based industries (Table 3). By comparison, the analytical knowledge-base that
are highly reliant on scientific knowledge and are not expected to be especially characterizing for the
game industry.
-­‐
Table 3: Categorization of analytical, synthetic and symbolic knowledge bases
Analytical knowledge
base
Synthetic knowledge
base
Symbolic knowledge
base
Important type of
knowledge
Importance of scientific
knowledge often based on
deductive process and
formal models.
Importance of applied,
problem-related, knowledge
(engineering), often though
inductive processes.
Importance of reusing or
challenging existing
conventions.
Knowledge learning
process
Research collaboration
between firm (R&D
department) and research
organizations.
Interactive learning with
clients and supplier.
Learning though interaction
in the professional
community, learning from
youth/street culture or
‘fine’ culture, and
interaction with ‘border’
professional communities.
Proposed importance for
video game development
Low High High
Source: Asheim, Coenen, and Vang, 2007:661
The symbolic knowledge-base of creative industries have been characterized as highly dependent on
learning-by-doing with face-to-face interaction as essential component, a deep understanding of
specific user groups, highly tacit knowledge, and a reliance on local “buzz”(Asheim, Coenen, and
Vang, 2007).
Synthetic knowledge bases, often characterizing of engineering based industries, have been
characterized by applied knowledge and learning though interaction with clients and suppliers (Ibid).

14.
14
Previous research has outlined the knowledge base of other industries (e.g. Martin & Moodysson,
2011), but we have little quantitative evidence pointing towards the characterizing knowledge base
involved in video game development. Based on this theoretical framework, the survey aimed to map
which sources of knowledge that were perceived as important for video game development in Japan.
Results
To gain an estimate of the perceived role of different sources of knowledge in Japanese video game
development, the survey asked game developer CEO’s to rate the importance of different sources of
knowledge for their game development efforts during the last 3 FY. The 10 categories of knowledge
sources were similar to those used in a recent Japanese national innovation survey (NISTEP, 2010),
with some minor alteration to better fit the context of the video game industry. Each knowledge
source was rated on a scale: “not a source”, “not an important source”, “moderately important
source” or “very important source”. The results are presented in Table 4.
There are no established ways in the literature of how industry survey ratings of knowledge sources
should be interpreted. However, we suggest a basic classification of “critical” and “general”
knowledge sources as follows. A critical knowledge source could be interpreted as those that are
rated as a “very important” for a majority of the firms in an industry. A general knowledge source
could be interpreted as those that are rated as “very important” or “moderately important” for a
majority of the firms in an industry.
Based on this definition, “users” falls under the category of critical knowledge source with a majority
(61.5%) of responding CEO’s regarding it as a very important source. The broader category of
general knowledge source included users (87.7%), competitors (75%) suppliers (73.2%), professional
magazines (65.7%) and exhibition/fairs (57.6%).
It is notable that the least important knowledge sources on the list were those 3 related to research
and education. A large majority of the firms rated private research institutes/consulting firms (92%),
Universities/Higher education institutes (85.8%) and Public institutes (84.1%) as either “not a
source” or “not an important source” of knowledge for video game development.

15.
15
Table 4: Perceived importance of different sources of knowledge for video game development during the last 3
FY
Not a
source (%)
Not an
importa
nt
source
(%)
Moderatel
y
important
source (%)
Very
importan
t source
(%)
N (Number
responding
CEO’s)
Mean (0=,
Not a
soruce, 3-
Very
important
source)
Std.
Deviation
Suppliers 12.5 14.3 35.7 37.5 56 1.98 1.02
Users 6.2 6.2 26.2 61.5 65 2.43 0.87
Competitors 3.1 21.9 48.4 26.6 64 1.98 0.79
Private research
institutes/consulting firms 44.4 47.6 4.8 3.2 63 0.67 0.72
Universities/Higher education
institutes 42.9 42.9 11.1 3.2 63 0.74 0.78
Public institutes 44.4 39.7 11.1 4.8 63 0.76 0.84
Academic
conferences/Association of
technology 28.1 31.3 28.1 12.5 64 1.25 1.01
Professional magazines 10.9 23.4 43.8 21.9 64 1.76 0.92
Exhibitions, Fairs 10.6 31.8 42.4 15.2 66 1.62 0.87
Patents from other companies 19.4 35.5 35.5 9.7 62 1.35 0.91
When the results are interpreted in relation to the theoretical discussion of knowledge-bases, they
imply that the video games industry is an industry with significant elements of symbolic and synthetic
knowledge bases. The later is evident by the perceived general role of learning both though suppliers
in game development and the former by the critical importance of interaction with users and the
general role of professional community of other firms (competitors). The result also implies that the
Japanese video game industry is less depending on analytical knowledge-bases, as evident by the
small perceived importance of learning through collaboration with research organizations and
institutes.

16.
16
The
role
of
users
in
video
game
development
Background:
Users
and
video
game
development
The nature of symbolic knowledge and the uncertainty regarding the market acceptance of creative
products means that firms are involved in an design process in co-development process with users
where certain user groups act as lead-users in an on-going design dialogue (von Hippel, 1986;
Morrison, Roberts, Midgley 2004; Grabher, Ibert and Flohr, 2008). Accordingly, users have been
described as having a key role in product development for creative industries.
In the game industry, some previous qualitative case studies have analyzed how individual game
companies have used different methods if user feedback in their development (e.g. Jeppesen, 2002;
Pagulayan et.al., 2003; Sotamaa, 2009; Zackariasson, Styhre and Wilson, 2006,). These studies have
also noted some of the major challenges involved in collecting, interpreting and implementing
different forms of user-feedback in game development.
In recent years, user-feedback methods have received renewed attention. In particular, several studies
of the use of focus-group tests and test-lab have been reported in trade magazines (Dobson, 2011;
Greenwood-Ericksen et.al. 2010; Viggers, 2011). While no comparative data exist, accounts from
game developers imply that the use of more formal user-centered methods such as focus group tests
still is more common practice among game companies in the US than in Japan (Author’s interview).
Hence, there is a lack of statistical data regarding the current status of user-feedback practices in the
Japanese video game industry. The current report aimed to address this by surveying the usage of
feedback-methods among Japanese developers.
Results
To gain an estimate the application of user feedback methods in Japanese video game development,
the survey analyzed how often and when different forms of user feedback were used in game
development. A total of 8 categories of user feedback methods were included in the questionnaire.
The categories were chosen based on a list of existing user feedback methods in the industry that
were derived after secondary literature, expert interview and the survey pilot test. A category of
“other” that could be specified were also be included. This other category did not generate any
additional user feedback method from responding companies, indicating that the chosen list
sufficiently covered significant user-feedback categories.
The results are presented in Table 5. The top 3 most common form of user centered feedback
methods was playtesting with the company’s own employees (80%), followed by playtesting with
company external users (66.7%) and informal field studies of users (44.6%). Some of the more

17.
17
formal ways of analyzing user feedback were used by relatively few developers, with 21.5% having
experience of focus group test and 27.7% of user surveys.
In terms of video game development process, different forms of user feedback methods are focused
on different stages of the development process. In this sense they might complement each other. For
example, user surveys are more used to gain knowledge during the early concept/prototyping phase,
while playtesting with users and informal field studies of user are more common in the late beta
phase of game development.
Table 5: Experience with different forms of user feedback in video game development during the last 3 FY
Experience of
the method (any
stage of
development)
(%)
Experience
of the
method
during
concept/pro
totyping
phase (%)
Experience of
the method
during Alpha
phase (%)
Experience of
the method
during Beta
phase (%) n
Playtesting with users (excl.
company employees) 66.2 16.9 24.6 46.2 65
Playtesting with company
employees 80 46.2 61.5 67.7 65
Focus group test 21.5 4.6 13.8 10.8 65
User interviews 21.5 9.2 9.2 7.7 65
User surveys 27.7 18.5 3.1 10.8 65
Internet forum feedback
analysis 26.2 15.4 0 10.8 65
Media feedback 27.7 6.2 4.6 18.5 65
Informal field studies of
users (e.g. during game
shows, company events) 44.6 1.5 10.8 36.9 65
The mean number of user feedback methods used based on the surveys classification was 3.2 with 1
the most common answer (mode) reported by 20% of responding companies (Table 6).
Around half of responding companies (53.8%) had experience of 1-3 feedback methods.

18.
18
Table 6: Number of user feedback methods used in video game development during the last 3FY
Number of user feedback methods
used during the last 3 FY of video
game development
Responding companies (n) Percentage of responding companies
0 5 7.7
1 13 20.0
2 11 16.9
3 11 16.9
4 7 10.8
5 9 13.8
6 3 4.6
7 2 3.1
8 4 6.2
N=65
Game
development
tool
usage
Background:
The
use
of
game
engines
and
SCM
programs
in
game
development
The increasing complexity of video game developments had given rise to a range of support
industries developing middle ware. This includes e.g. companies making graphic engines, physic
engines, AI engines and version control tools.
While the larger game publishers in Japan have
extensive resources to develop their own game development tools (e.g. Capcom’s MT Framework),
the situation is markedly different for smaller and medium sized developers that have more limited
financial- and R&D resources.
As one of the challenges facing the Japanese game development industry, individual developers have
expressed the perception that Japanese game development in general has not been able to advance its
technology to the same degree as U.S. game developers in recent years (e.g. Sheffield, 2007; Tabuchi,
2010). It has further been argued that Japanese game developers have been reluctant to adapt and
invest in the usage of game development tools such as game engines, physics engine, AI engines and
Software Configuration Management programs (e.g. Burns, 2010; Carless, 2008; Parish & Mielke,
2008).
However, despite these individual accounts there has been a lack of statistical data regarding the
usage of middle-ware and development tools among Japanese video game developers. In order to
investigate this, the survey asked video game developers about the usage and source of game
development tools.
Results
CEO’s were asked about their experience of 4 game development tools. They were selected for
inclusion in the questionnaire as they have increased in importance during the last decade as game

19.
19
development has become more complex. Each game development tool also has a number of external
suppliers, providing companies with the additional option to develop them internally or license them
from external parties. To investigate the usage of each strategy, the questionnaire asked the
developers if the game development tools they used were developed internally and/or licensed from
external parties.
The results are presented in Table
7. In the survey, 57.8% of the developers reported having used
game engines in video game development during the last 3 FY. This was followed by physics engines
(40.6%), Software Configuration Management (SCM) Programs (37.5%) and AI engines (35.9%).
Developers were also asked about the sources of these development tools, i.e. if they were internally
and/or externally developed. The results varied considerably between different type of development
tools. While a majority of developers with experiences from game engines and AI engines reported
having developed them internally, the distribution between internally and external sources were
rather equal for physic engine and SCM programs (Table 4).
Although there are no directly comparable data from western game developers, some data indicates
that the usage of game development tools is comparatively low in Japan. 7
Table
7:
Experience
of
using
game
development
tools
during
the
last
3
FY
Experience
using it
Experience of using it, developed
internally
Experience of using it, developed
externally n
Game
engine 57.8 43.8 18.8 64
Physics
engine 40.6 21.9 21.9 64
AI engine 35.9 25 12.5 64
SCM
program 37.5 18.8 21.9 64
7 A recent survey from Game Engine Survey from Game Developer Magazine indicated that 58.7% of PC and video
game developers had been using a licensed (externally developed) game engine for their current development project
(DeLoura, 2011). This is significantly higher than the most related result from the current survey results in which 18.8%
reported experience of using externally developed game engines during the last 3 FY. The differences are even higher
considering the fact that the Game Developer Magazine survey only asked about the current development project and
not the experience of all development projects during the last 3 FY. However, several differences between both surveys
(survey mode, potential response biases, question wording etc.) make a direct comparison of results difficult.
Nevertheless, this might indicate that experience of using externally developed game engine technology is higher among
Western developers. These potential differences and their cause might be a topic that could be of interest for future
studies.

20.
20
Video
game
developers
as
outsourcing
service
suppliers
and
providers
Background
The increasing complexity of the game development value chain and the increasing development
costs of games have provided incentives for outsourcing activity in the industry.
To get a better estimate of the current status of outsourcing activity in the industry, the survey
measured the extent and focus of outsourcing activity. Questions were divided into supply and
provider activity in order to measure both (1) how developers are working as partners providing
services as outsourcing suppliers and (2) how developers are outsourcing activities to external
companies during their own game development efforts.
Results:
Companies
as
outsourcing
service
partners
The results confirm that many Japanese game developers also work as outsourcing partners in
addition to their game development efforts (Table
8Table
9). According to the survey, 63.5% of
responding video game developers had worked as outsourcing partner for other companies’ video
game projects during the last 3 FY. The survey also asked which specific part of game development
that respondents had worked on as outsourcing service partner (Table
9). Looking more closely at
specific parts, the top 3 most common was: Animation/CGI (59.2%), Programming (53.2%) and Art
(40.4%).
Table
8:
Developers
as
outsourcing
service
suppliers
Worked as outsourcing partner for video game
projects during last 3 FY (%) n
63.5 63
Table
9:
Specific
part
of
video
game
projects
developers
worked
on
as
outsourcing
supplier
for
Percentage worked as
outsourcing supplier during last
3FY n
Art 40.4 47
Programming 53.2 47
Story 21.7 47
QA/game testing 14.9 47
Animation/CGI 59.2 47
Planning/Design 34.8 47
Music/Sound 26.1 47

21.
21
Results:
Outsourcing
service
provider
The results confirm that a large majority of Japanese game developers had outsourced parts of their
game development efforts (Table
9). In the survey, 78.7% of responding video game developers had
outsourced some parts of the video games they developed during the last 3 FY. The survey also
asked which specific part of their game development that respondents had outsourced (Table
11).
Looking more closely at specific parts, the top 3 most common was: Animation/CGI (64.7%),
Programming (58%) and Art (47.1%).
Table
10:
Developers
as
outsourcing
service
providers
Outsourced parts of video game titles during last 3
FY (%) n
78.7 61
Table
11:
Specific
part
of
video
game
projects
developers
outsourced
Specific part of video game
company outsourced during
last 3FY
Percentage of companies that
outsourced part n
Art 47.1 51
Programming 58 50
Story 34.7 49
QA/game testing 44 50
Animation/CGI 64.7 51
Planning/Design 20.4 49
Music/Sound 72 50

22.
22
Business
ties
with
publishers
Background
Japanese business practice is often characterized by sticky business ties, although the structure of
business networks have changed during the last decade (Lincoln & Gerlach, 2004). Within the
Japanese video game industry, a previous study has analyzed the business network between game
publishers and video game platform holders (Inoue and Nagayama, 2011). However, there is limited
quantitative data of business ties between video game developers and publishers in Japan. To
account for this, the survey asked developers to report the strength and length of business ties they
had with game publishers during the last 3 FY.
Results
Respondent companies (n=70) had business relationships with a mean of 4 publishers during the last
3 FY (Table
12). The most commonly occurring number of publisher relationships (mode) were 3
(18.6% of responding companies). The result confirms that the number of publisher ties among
individual developers is relatively low. Around half of the developers (47.2%) had worked with 1-3
publishers during the last 3 FY (Table
13).
Table
12:
Number
of
developer
ties
with
publishers
Mean 4.04
Mode 3
Standard Deviation 4.20
N 70
Table
13
Frequency
of
number
of
developer
ties
with
publishers
Number of publisher relationships
during the last 3 FY
Responding companies (n) Percentage of responding companies
0 6 8.6
1 11 15.7
2 9 12.9
3 13 18.6
4 7 10.0
5 7 10.0
6 7 10.0
7 4 5.7
8 1 1.4
10 3 4.3
14 1 1.4
30 1 1.4
N=70

23.
23
In order to study the length of develop ties with publishers, the survey asked companies to rate the
length of the ties with the publishers they had business relationships with during the last 3FY. The
survey contained 3 categories: 0-3 years, 4-6 years and >6 years. Of the total number of publisher
relationships reported, 49.1% had lasted 0-3 years, 26.7% had lasted 4-6 years and 24.2% had lasted
>6 years (Table
14).
Table
14:
Length
of
publisher
relationships
(that
the
companies
had
during
last
3
FY).
Publisher relationship been
lasting 0-3 years
Publisher relationship been
lasting 4-6 years
Publisher relationship been
lasting >6 years
Percentage of companies 49.1 26.7 24.2
Number of relationships 138 75 68
N=64

24.
24
Game
development
and
innovation
strategy
Anticipated
and
actual
game
development
time
Background
Game development is a complex endeavor, shaped by several sources of uncertainty. Development
time seems inherently challenging to predict accurately. Some of the suggested sources of these
challenges include such factors such as underdeveloped planning and development methodology
among developers, unrealistic expectations about development time from publishers and the
inherent uncertain and unpredictable nature of game development itself. A meta-analysis of Game
Developer Magazine post-mortems of game development projects (published Feburary 2008-January
2010, n=24), found that a large number of development projects reported an extension of the game
development time to finish the project (38%) and/or crunch-time (38%) (Shirinian, 2011).8
Results
The survey asked respondent CEO’s about their experience of extended game development time. In
order to provide a quantifiable and coherent way to measure this, CEO’s were asked how many of
their game development projects during the last 3FY that had taken longer time than anticipated at
the original design document.9
Because it is likely that some games did not have a specific
development time at the design document, a third alternative was also included: “no anticipated
development time in the original design document”.
The results are presented in
Table
15. Based on the survey answers, 50.7% of games were responded to have been developed on
time, 43.9% took longer than anticipated at the start of the alpha phase and 5.4% of video games had
no anticipated development time in the design document at the start of alpha phase.
The result confirms that it is common with game development projects that take longer time than
anticipated at the start of game development. The present survey has not investigated the main
underlying causes for these delays, something that might be of interest for further studies.
Table
15:
Anticipated
and
actual
video
game
development
time
8 The results should be interpreted cautiously as meta-studies of self-reported postmortem include several sources of
uncertainty, including differences in definition of the terms, differences in the degree of self-reporting the issues,
different positions of respondents etc.
9 Other existing strategies to handle time-constraint challenges (crunch-time, feature cuts etc.) were secluded from the
survey because they were perceived as challenging to define and measure accurately in a coherent way.

25.
25
Video games developed on
time (last 3 FY)
Video games taking longer
than anticipated at the start
of alpha phase
Video games with no
anticipated development
time in design document
Percentage of games
developed
50.7 43.9 5.4
Number of video games 308 267 33
Mean 4.97 4.31 0.53
Standard Deviation 6.27 6.34 2.30
N=62
In order to get some rough sense of the length of additional development time, respondents were
asked to rate the number of games that were 0-6 months and >6 moths over time. Based on the
responses, 93.9% of the games were within 0-6 months over time and 6.1% >6 moths over time.10
Hence, among those games that take longer than anticipated, most of them is finished within less
than half a year delay compared to the plan at the start of alpha phase.
Abandoned
game
development
projects
Background
It has been well known that creative industries often are characterized by a significant
overproduction. A large number of projects are discontinued during the various stages of
development before they reach the market and only a limited number of the products that reach the
market become unprofitable (Caves, 2000; Hirsh, 1972). As the sunk-cost often increase rapidly in
each subsequent stage of production, one of the key challenge for managers in these industries is to
try to improve ability to predict which concept that become market success as early as possible (De
Vany, 2003; Caves, 2000).
There are little data regarding the degree to which video games are abandoned in different stages
before they reach the market.11
Results
In order to study the extent to which games were abandoned during the development, CEO’s were
asked how many games they had abandoned during the three stages of production: prototype-,
alpha- and beta phase. The results are presented in Table
16.
10 The number of responding games companies were slightly lower for this item, 60 companies (reporting 229 games that
were delayed).
11 According to one guesstimate from a book author, “only 20% of games that begin production will ever finish” (cited in
Chalk, 2008). However, it is likely that these guesstimates are erroneously overestimating the number of abandoned
games.

26.
26
According to the result, 11.4%of the total number of video game projects (abandoned and released)
during the last 3FY was abandoned.12
The number of abandoned projects appears relatively low, but
the survey results should be interpreted carefully as there is a risk of underreporting of sensitive self-
reported data.
Looking more specifically at the different phases of development, games are most often abandoned
during the earlier phases with the prototype phase representing 46.4% of abandoned game projects,
alpha phase 37.7% and beta phase 15.9%.
Table
16:
Abandoned
games
development
projects
Video games abandoned in
prototype phase (last 3 FY)
Video games abandoned in
alpha phase (last 3 FY)
Video games abandoned in
beta phase
Percentage of abandoned
projects last 3 FY
46.4 37.7 15.9
Percentage of total video
game projects during the
last 3 FY (abandoned and
published, n=604)
5.3 4.3 1.8
Number of video games 32 26 11
Mean 0.53 0.43 0.18
Standard Deviation 0.99 0.89 0.47
N=60
Self-­‐published
games
Background
The choice between self-publishing games and using an external publisher could be a complex one
for developers involving a number of economic as well as creative factor. During one of the
interviews preceding the survey, one game companies expressed the opinion that the choice was
depending on the nature of the planned game: the company tended to self-publish game concepts
that was “out-of-the-box” concepts posing difficulties for publisher to analyze their potential
(Author’s interview). The current surveyed asked the companies how common each strategy is.
Results
According to the results, 60.6% of the games reported to have been released during the last 3 FY by
companies in the survey were self-published (Table
17). In terms of each mode, responding
companies tended to use either strategy for all their games (i.e. either mostly self-published or using
an external publisher), with relatively few companies choosing a middle ground.
12 The number for “total number of video game projects” do not include games abandoned in earlier concept phase or
game projects that still are in development but not have reached the market.

27.
27
Table
17
Share
of
self-­‐published
games
Published by external game publisher Self Published
Share of video games developed 39.4 60.6
Total number of games reported 168 258
Mean 2.95 4.53
Std. Deviation 5.05 10.8
N=57
IP-­‐ownership
in
game
development
Background
IP-ownership is often an area of controversy and negotiations between publishers and developers
(see e.g. Orland, 2011). While ownership and creative control of game IP often is expressed as a
preference and goal for many developers, publishers often have a strong interest in IP ownership due
to economic reasons and for control over future sequels.
Results
The survey asked responding CEO’s about the IP-ownership of the games they had released during
the last 3 FY in order to get a better estimate of how it was distributed between game developers and
publishers. Although more complex forms of IP ownership sometimes are used in the game industry
(e.g. co-ownership or multiple party ownership), the survey only asked about publisher or developer
owned IP for the sake of simplification and clarity. The data answer was cleaned and 3 responding
companies that had misinterpreted the survey question were secluded from analysis.13
The results are presented in Table
18. Of the total number of games developed by responding
companies, there were roughly an equal number of game IP owned by external publishers (51.9%)
compared to those of the respondent developers (48.1%). The result confirms the view that IP-
ownership owned by the publisher still is the dominating form of video game development in the
industry.
Looking at the distribution of game developers in terms of IP ownership, there is a large variation
among developers with a tendency of them to be specialized on either side of the spectrum. A large
number of developers were reporting that all of their games have publisher owned IP and a smaller
group of the developers at the other end of the scale that reports that ≥75% of their developed
games have self owned publisher.
13 These companies had misinterpreted reporting as involving downloadable video game as well (not only packaged video
games). The results should be interpreted carefully, as it is possible that other companies that has not been identified also
have included the reporting of downloadable games in their reporting.

28.
28
Taking all respondent companies into consideration, then around half of the developers (49.2%) did
report that all of their game IP were self owned, while slightly more than a quarter (27.1%) of the
developer reported that ≥75% of their games had self-owned IP and 11.9% reporting that all of their
games developed had self owned IP.
The above sample also includes small and relatively new companies that just have developed a few
games during the last 3FY. The distribution is slightly different if we only include the responses from
companies that have developed ≥5 games during the last 3FY from the survey sample (n=36). 41.7%
of these companies reported that all their games were self owned, with 27.8% of the companies
reporting that ≥75% of their games had self-owned IP and 5.6% reporting that all their games
developed had self-owned IP.
The results confirms the view that there is a relatively small group of developers that predominantly
pursue a strategy of self-owned IP and a large group that only have been pursued development of
publisher owned IP.
Table
18:
Developer
owned
and
publisher
owned
IP
of
games
developed
during
the
last
3
FY
Developer owned IP External Publisher Owned IP
Share of video games developed 48.1 51.9
Total number of games reported 293 272
Mean 4.73 4.39
Std. Deviation 5.239 9.481
N=59

29.
29
CEO
background
and
demography
Background
The survey asked respondent to provide information regarding a variety of demographic variables.
The descriptive results for these survey items are provided below.
CEO
Age,
tenure,
company-­‐
and
industry
working
experience
The average CEO in our sample were 47.4 year, having worked 10.7 years as CEO in the current
company, 12.9 years in the company and 20.1 years in the industry. Of the responding CEO’s, 80.3%
(n=71) reported that they also were the founder of their companies, with the remaining 19.7% being
appointed CEO’s.
Table
19
CEO
Age,
tenure,
company-­‐
and
industry
working
experience
Mean (years) Std Deviation N
CEO Age 47.4 8.1 72
CEO Tenure 10.7 7.7 71
CEO years working at current
company
12.9 8.2 72
CEO years working in the
game industry
20.1 6.8 71
CEO
educational
experience
Responding CEO’s were asked about the highest level of education they had attained based on 8
categories of education (lowest to highest). The results are presented in Table
20. A majority of the
CEO’s had a university degree, with the most common educational level being bachelor degree
(55.7%).
Table
20
CEO
Highest
level
of
education
attained
Share of CEO’s (%)
1.高等学校
[high school, did not
graduate].
0
2.高等学校卒業
[high school, graduated] 20.0
3. 高等専門学校卒業
[college of
technology] 1.4
4.専修学校専門課程卒業
[vocational
school] 11.4
5.短期大学卒業
[junior college] 2.9
6.学部卒業（学士）[university bachelor
degree,] 55.7
7.大学院修了（修士）[university master
degree] 8.6
8.大学院修了（博士）[university doctoral
degree] 0
N=70

30.
30
CEO
main
fields
of
experience
To measure background experience, we asked CEO to report up to 3 areas in which they had gained
most experience during their career. The choice of the 8 areas included in the survey was intended
to give an extensive coverage of areas of experience. The list was derived though prior studies of
CEO surveys, qualitative analysis of a selection of video game CEO career backgrounds and pilot
test with industry experts.14
The results are presented in Table
21. The top 3 most common areas of experience were in
production (63.4%), design & story (43.7%) and creative direction (40.8%). This provide a support
for the notion that a large share of video game developer CEO’s have a background of experience in
areas that is related to the management of the creative processes and project. A smaller number of
CEO’s had experience of areas related to business, i.e. marketing & sales (35.2%) and financial &
administrative services (18.3%). Human resources (8.5%) and Animation (0%) do not appear to be
areas that many CEO’s have experience from.
Table
21:
CEO
main
areas
of
experience
Share of CEO with significant experience from the area (%)
Production (e.g. game producer) 63.4
Design and Story (e.g. game designer) 43.7
Animation 0
Creative direction 40.8
Technology and programming (e.g. lead
programmer, technical director). 21.1
Financial and administrative services 18.3
Marketing and sales 35.2
Human resources 8.5
N=71
14 An open-ended category of “other” was also included to enable respondent to provide any potential area that might
not have been included among the suggested categories. During the data-analysis of the survey responses, the few
responses from this other categories were interpreted to fit into some of the existing 8 categories in the survey and data
were adjusted accordingly.

31.
31
Conclusion
and
discussion
Based on the first research survey aimed specifically towards CEO’s of Japanese video game
developers, the current survey and related analysis presented findings of Japanese video game
developers related to the following areas:
• Financial performance of game developers
• External knowledge sources in game development
• User feedback methods in video game development
• Development tool usage in video game development
• Video game development strategies, outsourcing and business relationships with publishers
• CEO demography & background
The overall CEO response rate for the survey was 25.6% (N=74), with some of the individual survey
items received lower response rate. The following present some of the findings from the survey.
Based on the response rate, survey results have to be treated as indicative. Each chapter of the report
provides further information regarding response rate, results and background.
Financial performance of video game developers. The report data provides indication of a challenging
economic climate for Japanese video game developers with almost half of them having zero or
negative profit margin. These results support the concerns expressed by individual game developers
regarding the current financial status for video game development in Japan.
External knowledge sources in video game development. As reported by responding CEO’s, the most
important sources of knowledge involved in video game development were knowledge from users
and competitors. Notably, the results indicated that knowledge from research related institutes (e.g.
universities) were not regarded as an important for video game development.
User feedback methods in video game development. As reported by responding CEO’s, playtesting and
informal field studies are the most common ways of gaining user feedback in video game
development. Despite the importance applied to users and the discussion about user feedback
methods in industry trade publications, game developers were using a relatively limited set of user
feedback methods. More formal ways of gaining user feedback though focus groups have not yet
been widely adopted among the respondent companies.

32.
32
Development tool usage in video game development. Although the number of development tools has
increased in video game development during the last decade, their usage were still relatively limited
among responding video game developers. Although slightly more than half of the companies had
experienced using game engines, less than half had experience with physics engine, SCM programs,
and AI engines. In terms of game engines and AI engines, most of the companies with experience of
them had developed the tools internally. For physics engine and SCM programs, there was a rather
even distribution between internally and externally developed (licensed) tools.
Video game development and outsourcing strategies.
Video game developers also working as outsourcing partners for other game projects were relatively
common with over half of the responding companies reporting having experience doing that. As
expected, labor intensive work-tasks of development were most commonly pursued as outsourcing
partner with animation, programming and art being the most common.
Video game developers outsourcing part of their own development projects were highly common,
with a large majority reported having experience doing that. Animation, programming and art were
the most common part that game developers had outsourced.
The survey also reported results regarding various video game development strategies. These
included e.g. degree of self-published games, extent of development time overrun abandoned game
development projects and the status of IP-ownership of games in the industry.
CEO cognitive thinking style, demography & background. To get an indication of the background and
demography of CEO’s in Japan, the survey presented results regarding the educational experience,
career background and other variables. Limitations in the response rate of individual items did not
allow for reliable test of how this was related to financial performance and innovation at the
company level.
Discussion
To the degree that the results of the survey also are representable for the larger population of
Japanese video game developers, they might have implication for the industry, policy and research.
For industry policy and academic research, the survey highlight that there are some specific
characterizing feature of video game development which differentiate it from other industries and
might warrant specific policies tailored to its conditions. Two areas of interest in this regard are the
knowledge base of video game development and the specific development tools in the industry.
In terms of knowledge underlying video game development, user knowledge were perceived as
highly important while research institutes and universities were considered unimportant. The

33.
33
implication of this is that traditional industry policy models which often relies on knowledge network
between universities and industries are less applicable to the game industry. At the same time,
existing industry policy have yet to build up tools to support the knowledge network with users in
the game industry, especially as it involves specific challenges related to interpreting the symbolic
elements that makes games appealing. Despite the perceived role of user knowledge, the results
showed the relative lack of experience with user feedback methods among developers. This might be
an area in which industry policy e.g. could support such efforts as learning, best practices and costly
infrastructure (e.g. usability testing labs) related to user feedback methods.
The survey also revealed a relative lack of experience among Japanese developers with many of the
game development tools that have increased in prominence during the last decade. This is also a
potential area for industry policy support, as the lack of familiarity and usage with game development
tools according to some accounts have been one factor contributing to a lack of technological
sophistication of Japanese video games compared to U.S. counterparts.

34.
34
References
Anseel, F., Lievens, F. (2010)“Response Rates in Organizational Science, 1995–2008: A Meta-analytic
Review and Guidelines for Survey Researchers.” Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3):335-
349.
Asheim, B.T., Coenen, L. and Vang, J. (2007) “Face-to-face, buzz, and knowledge bases: sociospatial
implications for learning, innovation, and innovation policy”, Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, Vol. 25, pp.655-670.
Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. (2009). “Entrepreneurs' Social Skills and New Venture Performance:
Mediating Mechanisms and Cultural Generality”. Journal of Management, 35(2): 282-306.
Bartholomew, S., and Smith, A., (2006)”Improving Survey Response Rates from Chief Executive
Officers in Small Firms: The Importance of Social Networks.” Entrepreneurship Theory &
Practice, Januray issue: 83-96
Baruch, Y., and Holtom, B. (2008)”Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational
research”. Human Relations 61: 1139-1160
Burns, M. (2010). “Japanese game development: the path forward.” Gamasutra, November 23.
Retrieved from:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6211/japanese_game_development_the_.php?pri
nt=1
Carless, S. (2008). “TGS: Square Enix's Wada: Japanese Industry Has 'Lost Its Position'”, Gamasutra,
October 9, Retrieved from http://www.gamasutra.com/php-
bin/news_index.php?story=20573
Caves, R. (2000). Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and Commerce. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press
CESA (1998-2011). CESAゲーム白書 [CESA Games White Paper]. Tokyo: CESA.
Chalk, A. (2008). “Analyst Claims Only Four Percent Of Games Earn Money – UPDATED”.The
Escapist, November 26. Retrieved from
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/87636-Analyst-Claims-Only-Four-Percent-
Of-Games-Earn-Money-UPDATED
Cycota, C., and Harrison, D. (2002). “Enhancing Survey Response Rates at the Executive Level: Are
Employee- or Consumer-Level Techniques Effective?” Journal of Management 28 (4): 151-176,
Cycota, C., and Harrison, D. (2006). “What (Not) to Expect When Surveying Executives: A Meta-
Analysis of Top Manager Response Rates and Techniques Over Time “. Organizational
Research Methods, 9(4): 133-160
De Vany, A. (2003). Hollywood economics: How extreme uncertainty shapes the film industry. New York:
Routledge.
DeLoura, M. (2011). ”Game Engine Survey 2011”. Game Developer Magazine, 18(5): 7
Dennis, W., (2003) ”Raising Response Rates in Mail Surveys of Small Business Owners: Results of an
Experiment.” Journal of Small Business Management, 41(3):278–295.
Dobson, E (2011). “Opinion: Some hows and whys of usability testing”. Gamasutra. August 4.
Retrieved from

35.
35
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36344/Opinion_Some_Hows_And_Whys_Of_Usa
bility_Testing.php
Dillman, D., Smyth, J. & Christian, L. (2009). Internet, mail and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design
method. Third edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley
Dymek, M. (2010). Industrial phantasmagoria: Subcultural interactive cinema meets mass-cultural
media of simulation. Doctoral Thesis. Department of Industrial Economics and
Management, Royal Institute of Technology: Stockholm.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Third edition. Sage
Fujihara, M. (2010). “ゲーム産業における経営戦略と人材マネジメントに関する総合調査”.
Presented at CEDEC 2010, September 2.
Greenwood, Ericksen, A., Preisz, E. and Stafford, S. (2010). “Usability Breakthoughs: Four
techniques to improve your game. Gamasutra, September 10. Retrieved from
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6130/usability_breakthroughs_four_.php
Grabher, G., Ibert, O. and Flohr, S (2008) ‘The Neglected King: The Customer in the New
Knowledge Ecology of Innovation’, Economic Geography, Vol. 84, No. 3, pp.253-280.
Groves, R. , Fowler, J., Couper, M. etc. (2009). Survey methodology, Second edition. Hoboken, New Jersey:
Wiley
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). ”Upper echelons theory: An update”. Academy of Management Review 32: 334-
343
Hirsh,P.M. (1972): “Processing fads and fashions: An organization-set analysis of cultural industry
systems,” The American Journal of Sociology, 77: 639-659.
Inoue, T. and Nagayama, S. (2011). “A typology of niche strategy based on the dynamic relationship
between niches and hub-firms.” The Association of Japanese Business Studies
24th Annual Conference Proceedings June 24 & 25, 2011 – Nagoya, Japan :520-544
Jeppesen, L.B. (2002) ‘Making Consumer Knowledge Available and Useful. The Case of the
Computer Games’, DRUID Working Paper, No. 01–10, Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business
School.
Khatri, N., & Ng, H. A. (2000). The role of intuition in strategic decision making. Human Relations,
53: 57–86.
Lawrence, T. B., & Philips, N. (2002). Understanding cultural industries. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 11(4): 430–441.
Lampel, J., Lant, T. and Shamsie, J. (2000) “Balancing Act: Learning from Organizational Practices in
Cultural Industries.”Organization Science, 25(3): 541–74.
Lincoln, J. M., M. L. Gerlach. 2004. Japan’s Network Economy. Cambridge University Press, New
York
Martin, R. and Moodysson, J. (2011) ‘Innovation in symbolic industries: the geography and
organization of knowledge sourcing’, European Planning Studies, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp.1183-1203.
Morrison, P.D., Roberts, J.H. and Midgley, D.F. (2004), ‘The nature of lead users and measurement of
leading edge status’, Research Policy, Vol. 33, pp.351-362.
NISTEP (2010). 第２回全国イノベーション調査報告[Report on Japanese National Innovation
Survey 2009]. Nistep Report 144, Sptember 2010. National Institute of Science and
Technology Policy (NISTEP)
Orland, K. (2011). “IP ownership issue prevented respawn from signing with THQ.” Gamasutra,
January 14. Retrieved from

36.
36
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/32463/IP_Ownership_Issue_Prevented_Respawn_
From_Signing_With_THQ.php
Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing
styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 76, 972-987.
Pagulayan, R. J., Keeker, K., Wixon, D., Romero, R. L., Fuller, T. (2003). User-Centered Design in
Games. In J. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals,
Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications (pp. 883-906). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Parish, J. & Mielke, J. (2008). ”The rise and fall (and rise) of Japan: As Western console development
comes into its own, Japanese creators are struggling to regain their voice”. 1Up, September
18. Retrieved from: http://www.1up.com/features/rise-fall-rise-japan
Sheffield, B. (2007). ” Heaven'sNight:An InterviewWith Akira Yamaoka”.Gamasutra,December 24.
Retrieved
from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3281/heavens_night_an_interview_with_.php?print=1
Shintaku, J., Tanaka, T., and Yanagawa, N. (2003) Gemu sangyo no keizai bunseki [Analysis of the economics
of the game industry], Tokyo: Toyo Keizai Shinhosha.
Shirinian, A. (2011). “Dissecting the Postmortem”. Game Developer magazine, 18(2).
Sotamaa, O. (2009). The Player’s Game: Towards understanding player production among computer game cultures.
Dissertation, the Faculty of Social Science, University of Tampere.
Tabuchi, H. (2010) “Japanese Playing a New Video Game: Catch-Up” New York Times, September
19. Retrieved from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/technology/20game.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Leiter, j., and Thompson, S. (1994). “Organizational survey non-response”.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 439-467.
Viggers (2011). “Usability testing: Face the fear and learn to love it”. Gamasutra, July 14. Retrieved
from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6431/usability_testing_face_the_fear_.php
Von Hippel, E (1986) ‘Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts’ Management Science, Vol. 32,
No. 7, pp.791-805.
Zackariasson, P. Styhre, A. and Wilson, T. (2006). ‘Phronesis and Creativity: Knowledge Work in
Video Game Development’. Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 419-429.

37.
37
Appendix
1: Items surveyed
Area
Variable
Measurement
Firm
demography
Firmsize
Number
of
full
time
employees
Firm
demography
Firmage
2011
subtracted
with
the
year
company
was
founded
Financial
performance
Firm
sales
Sales
each
of
the
last
3
company
FY
Developer
financial
performance
Firm
operational
income
Operational
income
of
the
last
3
FY
CEO
background
CEO
age
2011
subtracted
with
CEO
year
of
birth
CEO
background
CEO
firm
experience
2011
subtracted
with
the
year
when
CEO
started
working
at
firm
CEO
background
CEO
tenure
2011
subtracted
with
the
year
when
CEO
were
appointed
CEO
background
CEO
industry
specific
experience
2011
subtracted
with
the
year
when
the
CEO
started
to
work
in
the
game
industry
CEO
background
CEO
ownership
status
If
CEO
are
founder
of
the
company
(yes/no)
CEO
background
CEO
level
of
education
Highest
level
of
education
attained
(6
items)
CEO
background
CEO
functional
experience
Up
to
3
functional
areas
of
most
experience
during
career
CEO
cognitive
style
CEO
analytical
thinking
style
6
items
,5
point
Likert
scale.
3
ability,
3
engagement
in
analytical(rational)
thinking
style.
Based
on
items
from
REI,
Pacini
and
Epstein
(1999)
with
no
negative
items
to
better
suit
Japanese
language
context.
CEO
cognitive
style
CEO
intuitive
thinking
style
6
items,
5
point
Likert
scale.
3
ability,
3
engagement
in
(experiential)
thinking
style.
Based
on
items
from
REI,
Pacini
and
Epstein
(1999)
with
no
negative
items
to
better
suit
Japanese
language
context.
CEO
cognitive
style
CEO
Social
skills
6
items,
5-­‐point
Likert
scale.
3
social
adptability
and
3
social
perception.
Based
on
Baron
&
Tang
(2009).
Game
development
&
innovation
strategy
Number
of
packaged
video
games
released
Number
of
video
games
released
during
previous
3
FY
Game
development
&
innovation
strategy
Degree
of
outsourcing
contracts
pursued
in
video
game
development
Number
of
games
in
which
the
company
has
worked
on
a
specific
part
during
the
previous
3
FY
Game
development
&
innovation
strategy
Aspect
of
video
games
that
the
company
has
been
pursuing
outsourcing
contract
for
What
aspects
of
games
that
the
company
has
been
used
as
outsourcing
partner
(8
items+
other)
Network
of
suppliers
&
publisher
Degree
of
use
of
external
partners
used
in
video
game
development
Number
of
developed
games
in
which
the
company
has
used
an
external
partner
for
developing
specific
parts
during
the
previous
3
FY
Network
of
suppliers
&
publisher
Aspect
of
the
game
for
which
external
partners
are
used
What
aspects
of
the
game
that
the
company
has
used
external
partners
for
(8
items+
other)
Network
of
suppliers
&
publisher
Network
of
publishers:
number
and
strength
of
ties
Number
of
publishers
the
company
has
had
relationship
with
during
the
previous
3
FY.
Length
of
relationship
with
publisher,
3
items
with
a
range
of
years
Game
development
&
innovation
strategy
Firm
focus
on
own
game
IP
Number
of
games
with
game
IP
owned
by
the
company
versus
publisher
Game
development
&
innovation
strategy
Firm
focus
on
self-­‐published
games
Number
of
games
published
internally
versus
using
external
publisher
Game
development
&
innovation
strategy
Shares
of
game
project
time
overrun
Number
of
games
requiring
longer
development
time
than
planned
Game
development
&
innovation
strategy
Degree
of
game
project
time
overrun
How
long
time
games
were
overtime
(2
items)
Technology
usage
Use
of
game
development
tools
Listing
of
3
types
of
middle
ware
and
project
planning
tool.
Technology
usage
Source
of
game
development
tool
(external,
internal)
If
game
development
tool
has
been
externally
developed
or
internally.
Information
usage
&
market
feedback
Use
of
external
information
scanning
for
knowledge
of
game
development
If
different
sources
of
external
information
has
been
used
in
game
development
(10
items
listed
+
other).
Information
usage
&
market
feedback
Importance
of
external
information
scanning
for
technical
aspects
of
game
development
How
important
different
sources
of
external
information
has
been
in
game
development
(3
stages
of
importance,
10
items
listed
+
other).
Information
usage
&
market
feedback
User
information
method
adopted
Which
user
information
method
the
company
has
adopted
Information
usage
&
market
feedback
Development
stage
in
which
user
information
method
is
used
Listing
of
4
stages
for
each
user
information
method
(concept,
prototype,
alpha,
beta)