In 1997, Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister at that time, proposed the term “creative industries.” Since then, not only has the term become an inspirational and overarching concept in Britain and Europe but also it has been accepted worldwide. Hence, all countries have the potential to use creative industries to strengthen their global competitiveness through various cultural means, such as exporting games, movies, design, fashion, and so on. In intellectual terms, the concept of creative industries captures “those industries which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have a potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property” (Department for Culture, Media & Sport, 2001, p. 5). The formulation of this concept to describe the economic function of intellectual property was elaborated by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) as “any economic activity producing symbolic products with a heavy reliance on intellectual property and for as wide a market as possible” (UNCTAD, 2010, p. 7). Thus, digital games and many other forms of games that embody the element of creative content and that rely strongly on intellectual property and authenticity constitute conceptual models of creative industries (Throsby, 2008a, b).

Global game industries are naturally in the domain of creative industries. However, when we talk about the industrial aspect of culture, we then directly refer to cultural production—which presumably has a wide distribution and consumption—and national policies that govern, restrict, or enhance creative industries early in the twenty-first century. Various approaches of conceptualization have contributed to enriching the knowledge of creative industries. From a sociological perspective, Davies and Sigthorsson (2013) suggested that creative industries are economic activities that provide employment opportunities to cultural workers, whose output provides consumers with pleasurable and meaningful experiences. Creative industries and other industries are interdependent and have interlocking business relationships apart from the benefits of the economy of scale (Davies & Sigthorsson, 2013). In shifting to the perspective of network theory, Hartley (2012) espoused creativity as a form of social technology, the markets for which expand in parallel with increasing interactions between producers of various digital platforms. Based on this notion, he further defined creative industries as “‘social network markets,’ where choices are made not on the basis of rational choice in perfect equilibrium but on the basis of competitive status among networked agents” (Hartley 2012, p. 47). Taking a more critical angle, Hesmondhalgh (2002) interpreted creative industries as the heavily industrialized and commodified industries that exploit creativity. He is more concerned with the rights of creative labor in the process of developing national creative industries (Hesmondhalgh, 2002, 2008). In framing creative work as cultural industry, Hesmondhalgh (2008) pointed out the danger of falling into the paradox of neoliberalism and neglecting inequalities and exploitations. In addition to the argument for creative labor, McRobbie (2005) also accused creative industries and cultural entrepreneurialism of “ripping off” creative autonomy, which “marks the decline of ‘the indies’ (the independents), the rise of the creative subcontractor and the downgrading of creativity” (McRobbie, 2005, p. 337).

Scholars in the field of sociology and media studies have pooled their efforts to understand the production of digital games. For example, Zackariasson and Wilson (2012) offered an in-depth account of the value chain in game production and the landscapes of game developers across countries. Another stream of research focused on the business strategy used in developing games. Brookey (2010) elaborated the business considerations of film production and its affiliated games. The synergy of integrating film narratives with interactive games in Hollywood productions aligns movie lovers with game enthusiasts (Brookey, 2010). While these studies offer concrete insights into game production, the operation on the industry level is awaiting exploration. Building on this previous research, which ranges from a sociological approach to a critical perspective, this book takes a step further to examine the political economy of game industries across countries and regions.

This book also offers a unique global and comparative perspective. Although cultural creative industries on the global level have been theorized in terms of production, consumption, market, locale, and cultural policy (Flew, 2013; Lash, 2007), no previous volume has offered discussions about how the game industries and the game market operate in different regions of the world. This book is perhaps the first attempt to document how games are developed and marketed globally, how people across the globe consume games, and in what global politico-economic contexts game industries operate. Each chapter provides detailed analyses of important global cases of game industries and formulates multidimensional comparisons between countries and regions. The advantage of the comparative perspective is that is allows for contextual descriptions of differences between cases (Landman, 2000). The game industries that are analyzed in this book are situated in markets with contrasting industry mechanisms and social systems—from bounded markets to free markets and from state-driven to laissez-faire economic policies. The government-subsidized model in major game-exporting states in Asia, the market-driven models in the US, and the EU-driven models in Europe comprise distinctive differences across the globe.

The analysis of cultural policy is also a focus in the book. From a critical perspective, cultural policy can be interpreted as official discourse in the guise of promoting creativity. Miller and Yudice (2002) defined cultural policy as “the institutional supports that channel both aesthetic creativity and collective ways of life” (Miller & Yudice, 2002, p. 1). In addition to this understanding, O’Brien (2015) proposed that cultural policy is the association of public values and cultural values. Specifically, in analyzing the case of British policy, O’Brien (2015) found that cultural policy is “making cultural investment economically useful in light of the economic crisis in Western Europe” (O’Brien, 2014, p. 43). In other words, the study of cultural policy requires a critical analysis of the political agendas that govern cultural production.

In Asia, local game industries are closely associated with the states’ cultural and economic policies and interests. Japan includes digital games in its Cool Japan initiative in addition to manga, animation, and music in order to boost the export of its creative content (Ministry of Economic, Trade, and Industry, 2012). The South Korean government established the Korea Creative Content Agency (KOCCA) with the intention of globalizing Korean-made creative content, including online games. The agency provides direct support to Korean game industries to improve their global competitiveness (KOCCA, 2013). In the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the animation and game industries were placed at the core of its strategic plan during the 17th Party Congress for the economic benefit of culture and creative industry (Xinhua News, 2009). The Taiwanese government has grouped digital games with software development and digitized content production, which are monitored by Ministry of Economic Affairs under the umbrella of digital content industries (Ministry of Culture, 2015). In South East Asia, Singapore has attempted to globalize its creative industries by offering incentives to global game developers by providing infrastructure and tax breaks under the management of the Media Development Authority (MDA, 2015). Compared with the relatively widely reported creative industries in Europe and the USA, these Asian cases have been undocumented.

This anthology can be regarded as providing a comprehensive survey and analysis of the major game markets across the globe. Of course, there are limitations: Chinese games are reportedly played in Africa while games developed in India are influential in that country. Furthermore, some developing game markets are covered in this volume. Nevertheless, this book can be seen as a first step towards understanding the practices, governance, and consumption in game markets worldwide.

To recapitulate, the primary focus of the book is cultural policy and game industries. Throughout the book, implicit comparisons are made to address the similarities and differences between the Asian and global game markets. The book starts with a theoretical analysis of the game industries, markets, and relationships with the states that implement cultural policies that regulate the former. It covers the emerging and converging theories and models of cultural industries, their development, and their connection to national cultural policy and globalization. This analysis is followed by a concrete regional analysis and comparison of the game market and policies in the Asian market, including China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Southeast Asia, as well as in North America and Europe. Two major types of games, online and mobile, are examined. Issues such as governance, piracy, space, and the cross-border nature of games are explored. These chapters provide up-to-date empirical market data on the industry, the latest cultural policies, and scenarios in global game industries. Because all the chapters are complementary to each other, this anthology serves to map a global picture of game industries, markets, games, audiences, circulation, and consumption.

Some chapters position the game industry as a branch of cultural and creative industries, and discuss games and cultural policy. Although other aspects of games and the game industry, such as users, audiences, and game content are important, they will not be highlighted in separate chapters. Instead, the discussion will be focus on the industry in order to generate coherent and congruent understanding of policy, context, audience, and content. The following is a brief summary of the chapters, which are arranged in three Parts.

The chapters in Part I examine the cultural and creative industries and their relationships with cultural policy. The introductory chapter sets the framework, tone, and focus of this volume. In terms of geographical areas, this chapter also describes recent changes in the political economy of games due to emerging cultural policies, particularly in Asia. With a rising global game industry, this chapter discusses the case of Asia, suggesting that contemporary cultural industries do not operate under the invisible hand of the market. Instead, the state plays a visible role in the market in the name of cultural policy, by regulating domestic production, promoting export overseas, and erecting barriers to entry. This kind of analysis, if properly done, requires wider interdisciplinary frameworks that integrate the approaches of political economy, cultural studies, and media and communication studies. Chapter 3 raises philosophical questions and discusses the theoretical dimensions of cultural policy. This chapter provides clear evidence of a trend in which the state intersects with the market by means of the Cool Japan initiative, which can be regarded as a cultural policy or, according to Iwabuchi, brand nationalism. In the wake of strong competition from Korea and China, the author critically evaluates brand nationalism, which is the attempt to produce and promote Japanese cultura...