政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/75394

政大典藏 > College of Commerce > Department of Business Administation > Theses > Item 140.119/75394

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/75394

Title:	數位娛樂產業商業模式演進－日本電玩產業個案探討 Evolution of Digital Entertainment Business Model: Research of Japan Video Games Industry
Authors:	談家宏 Tan, Chia Hung
Contributors:	管康彥 Kuan, Wellington K. 談家宏 Tan, Chia Hung
Keywords:	數位娛樂產業商業模式電玩產業任天堂 SCE 社群遊戲 digital entertainment industry business model game industry Nintendo SCE social game
Date:	2012
Issue Date:	2015-06-01 11:00:41 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	數位娛樂產業為新型態產業，自2000 年數位元年起，全球各國無不積極推動相關建設，期望帶動相關動畫、線上影音、數位遊戲等的整體發展。由於數位內容關係到一般大眾有關生活上有關娛樂、文化、教育、出版等產業脈動，近幾年迅速成為眾所期待的焦點。數位化娛樂從技術面開始帶動產業的革新，各種因素相互發生變化，加上消費者行為發生變化的結果，使得企業發覺過往商業模式有所不足。企業必須審視自身、重新界定價值才能抓住機會。台灣科技業實力堅強，聞名於世；但是相對於日韓等國，數位娛樂產業之發展規模尚淺。然而數位化議題日趨重要，相關發展機會如雨後春筍般出現，不得等閒視之。本論文在文獻探討主題上，把焦點放在幾個重點：數位娛樂產業、商業模式、商業模式創新。本研究試圖了解當今數位化趨勢與特徵為何，並從學者文獻中整理理論架構，找出商業模式重要面向為何。接下來以任天堂與Sony Computer Entertainment 兩間公司為分析個案，描述兩間公司如何發展商業模式面對社群遊戲挑戰，用以實證關於商業模式理論架構以及歸納個案產業特徵與發展特色。最後，本研究歸納出以下結論：商業模式之建立以核心價值為中心，且核心價值做為一切的基礎，不會隨意變動。企業應該妥善運用資源擺脫惰性，求新求變，以靈活、充滿彈性的商業模式來發揮核心價值，因應挑戰。當環境條件允許的情況下，企業便能夠以自身能力來改變環境，或者有時亦須被動地因應環境需求做調整。最後，商業模式之建立為一連續過程，而在模式建立的過程中，產業之間也有機會產生連結，進而合作，共創、共享價值。關鍵字：數位娛樂產業、商業模式、電玩產業、任天堂、SCE、社群遊戲。 Digital entertainment industry is a new style industry. Since 2000s, the first year of digital era, the whole world began to boost the related projects of the industry, and looked forward to drive the development of animations, online studios and digital games. Because digital contents have a lot to do with activities of general entertainment, culture, education and publishing, recently it has brought everyone’s eyes on it. Digital entertainment brought the innovation from the technique side, different elements started to have an effect on the others. What’s more, the change of consumer behavior made enterprises found that old business models are no longer apply to new environment. They needed to check themselves again and try to redefine their core value, so can they catch new chances. Technology industry in Taiwan is strong and world-famous. But when it comes to compare with Japan, Korea or other countries, development of digital entertainment industry is still in the beginning stage. However, digital issues are more important, opportunities also sprang up like mushrooms. It should not be treated lightly. This study has focused on several subjects: digital entertainment industry, business model and innovation of business models. First, the study had tried to realize the characteristic of current trend of digitization, and then tried to find out major factors of building business models by classification of research documents. Second, the study has chosen two target companies: Nintendo and Sony Company Entertainment as goal of analysis, and tried to tell how the two companies faced the challenges of social games and online games by developing their own business models. Thus, we can prove how the business model theories work and generalize the feature and characteristic of target industry. In the end, the study has conclusions as below: The establishment of business should be based on core value, and it is the foundation of everything and will never be changed easily. Companies need to use their resources by flexible applications to get rid of laziness, fully perform their core values by varied business models and face the challenges. With the availability of environment, enterprises can actively change the world by their own power, or they have to adjust themselves to adapt the circumstance. At last, Building of business model is a continuous process. When running a new model, there may be cooperation between different industries and different companies can create and share the value together. Key words: digital entertainment industry, business model, game industry, Nintendo, SCE, social game.
Reference:	一、中文參考資料 1. 王志仁（2002），PLAY 數位內容，數位時代雙週刊。 2. 王正德（2003），從資源基礎觀點思考台灣數位內容的整合與行銷策略，國立政治大學傳播學院廣播電視學系碩士班研究。 3. 行政院文化建設委員會（2004），數位內容：虛擬與真實交界的產業，台北，典藏藝術家庭。 4. 洪德生（2003），文化創意產業產值調查與推估研究報告-推動文化創意產業之系統服務規劃，台北，台灣經濟研究院，pp.23-29。 5. 楊伶雯(2012)，全球遊戲產值今年逾600 億美元經濟部看到了？，今日新聞網，2012 年10 月15 日。 http://www.nownews.com/2012/10/15/11490-2863342.htm#ixzz2XNkAjXhi 6. 鄭義煒（2011），國際市場結構變化與日本遊戲產業創新，復旦大學日本研究。 7. 潘朝舉（2001），廠商競爭對抗之研究－以電視遊戲機廠商為例，國立中山大學企業管學系碩士班論文。 8. 廖珮君譯（2005），Hesmondhalgh David 著，文化產業，台北：韋伯文化， pp.13-18。 9. 蕭文娟（2004），華文區數位內容產業共同發展趨勢－以線上遊戲為例，玄奘傳播知識學報第一期，pp.71-98。 10. 賴品揚（2010），遊戲機在數位家庭娛樂應用之策略探討-以Sony 為例，清華大學經營管理碩士在職專班論文。 11. 謝銘洋（2008），數位內容著作權基本問題及侵權，台北，經濟部智慧財產局。二、英文參考資料 1. Afuah, A.,(2001), Dynamic boundaries of the firm: Are firms better off being vertically integrated in the face of a technological change, Academy of Management Journal, 44(6): 1211. 2. Amit, R. & Zott, C., (2001), Value creation in e-business, Strategic Management Journal, Jun/Jul 2001. , Vol. 22, Iss. 6/7; pp. 493-520. 3. Bettis, R. & Hitt, M.(1995). The New Competitive Landscape, Strategic Management Journal, 11, pp.7-19. 4. Betz, F., (2002), Strategic Business Models, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 14, No.1, pp. 21-27. 5. Björkdahl, J. (2009), Technology cross fertilization and the business model: The case of integrating ICTs in mechanical engineering products. Research Policy, 38: pp.1468-1477. 6. Casadesus-Masanell, R., & J. E. Ricart, (2010), From strategy to business models and to tactics. Long Range Planning, 43: pp.195-215. 7. Demil, B., & X. Lecocq, (2010), Business model evolution: In search of dynamic consistency. Long Range Planning, 43: pp.227-246. 8. Eisenmann T., G. Parker and M. W., Van Alstyne (2006), Strategies for Two-Sided Markets. Harvard Business Review. 9. Gambardella, A., & A. M. McGahan, (2010), Business model innovation: General purpose technologies and their implications for industry structure. Long Range Planning, 43: pp.262-271. 10. Henry Chesbrough and Richard S. Rosenbloom (2006), The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation`s technology spin‐off companies, Oxford Journal, Volume 11, Issue(3) pp. 529-555. 11. Hamel, G., (2000), The Challenge Today: Changing the Rules of the Game, Business Strategy Review, Vol.9, Issue2, pp. 19-26. 12. Hayashi, A. M. (2009), Do you have a plan “B”? MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(1): pp.10-11. 13. Jamrog, J. , Vickers, M. & Bear, D., (2006), Building and Sustaining a Culture that Supports Innovation, HR. Human Resource Planning, Vol.29, No.3, pp. 9-18. 14. Johnson, M.W., Christensen, C.M. and Kagermann, H., (2008), Reinventing your business model, Harvard Business Review, 86(12), 50-59. 15. Johnson, M. W., & J. Suskewicz, (2009), How to jump-start the clean tech economy. Harvard Business Review, 87(11): pp.52-60. 16. Linder J. C., Cantrell S., (2001), Five business model myths that hold companies back, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 29, No.6, pp. 13-18. 17. Magretta, J. (2002), Why Business Model Matter, Harvard Business Review, May 2002, Vol.80, Issue 5, pp. 86-92. 18. Mayo, M. & Brown, G., (1999), A Competitive business model, Ivey Business Journal, March/April, pp. 19-23. 19. McGrath, R. G. (2010), Business models: A discovery driven approach. Long Range Planning, 43: pp.247-261. 20. Mitchell, D. & Coles, C., (2003), Building Better Business Models, Leader to Leader, summer 2003, pp. 12-17. 21. Morries, M. , Schindehutte, M. & Allen, J., (2005), The entrepreneur’s business model: toward a unified perspective, Journal of Business Research, 58, pp. 726-735. 22. Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., Richardson, J. & Allen, J., (2006), Is The Business Model A Useful Strategic Concept? Conceptual, Theoretical, and Empirical Insights, Journal of Small Business Strategy, Vol.17, No.1, pp. 27-50. 23. Moore, G.A., (2007), Dealing with Darwin: How great companies innovate at every phase of their evolution, Portfolio, New York. 24. Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2002),The Co-Creation Connection, Strategy+ Business, Second Quarter, 27: pp.1-12. 25. Prasad V., Ramamurthy K., and Naidu G.M., (2001), The Influence of Internet-Marketing Integration on Marketing Competencies and Export Performance, Journal of International Marketing, Vol.9, No.4, pp.82-110. 26. Rappa, M. , (2000), Business Models on the Web, November 15, available at: http://ecommerce.ncsu.edu/topics/models/models.html 27. Sawhney, M. , Wolcott, R. C. & Arroniz, I., (2006), The 12 Different Ways for Companies to Innovate, MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring, Vol.47, No.3, pp. 75-82. 28. Schmid, B., R. Alt, H. Zimmermann, and B. Buchet, (2001), Anniversary edition:business models, Electronic Markets, 11(1): 3-9. 29. Shapiro, C. & Varian, H. R. (1998). Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. New York: Harvard Business School Press. 30. Sosna, M., R. N. Trevinyo-Rodríguez & S. R. Velamuri, (2010), Business models innovation through trial-and-error learning: The Naturhouse case. Long Range Planning, 43: pp.383-407. 31. Stewart, D. & Zhao, Q. (2000), Internet Marketing, Business Models, and Public Policy, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol.19., No.2, pp. 287-296. 32. Tapscott, D., Ticoll, D., & Lowy, A. (2000). Digital Capital: Harnessing the Power of Business Webs, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. 33. Thomke, S. and von Hippel, E. (2002), Customer as Innovators: A New Way to Create Value, Harvard Business Review, 80(4): pp.74-81. 34. Timmers, P., (1998), Business Models for Electronic Markets, Electronic Markets International Journal of Electronic Commerce & Business Media, Vol.8, No.2, pp. 3-8. 35. Tucker, R., (2001), Strategy innovation takes imagination, Journal of Business Strategy, 22(3), pp.23-27 36. Viscio, A. & Pastemack, B., (1996), Toward a New Business Model, Strategy +business, Harvard Business School, Second Quarter. 37. Voelpel, S. , Leibold, M. , Tekie, E. & Krogh, G., (2005), Escaping the Red Queen Effect in Competitive Strategy: Sense-Testing Business Models, European Management Review, Vol.23, No.1, pp. 37-49. 38. Zott, C., & R. Amit, (2008), The fit between product market strategy and business model: Implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29: pp.1-26. 三、日文參考資料 1. 編集長インタビュー，山内溥氏(任天堂社長)「ファミコン情報論」あくまで娯楽屋の発想でいきます,日経ビジネス， 1986 年3 月17 日号， pp.80-83。 2. 企業戦略ケーススターディ，任天堂揺れるソフト王国ファミコンの高収益構造、ヒビ割れの恐れ，日経ビジネス，1989 年1 月30 日号，pp.80-83。 3. 新規事業ソニー、本丸はマルチメディア、ゲーム機に攻め込む，日経ビジネス，1994 年1 月17 日号，pp.39-42。 4. 情報通信技術フロンティア，激しさ増すゲーム機市場争奪戦、 NINTENDO64 は成功するか，日経ビジネス， 1996 年8 月19 日号， pp.54-56。 5. 次世代ゲーム、プレイステーション3、背中合わせのリスクとチャンス，日経ビジネス，2006 年4 月3 日号，pp.41-43。 6. 時代を超える「娯楽屋魂」(特集山内溥相談役、岩田聡社長が語る任天堂はなぜ強い--「たかが娯楽」の産業創出力)，日経ビジネス，2007 年12 月17 日号，pp.40-43。 7. 編集長インタビュースペシャル、岩田聡氏「任天堂社長」いつまでも尖り続ける(特集山内溥相談役、岩田聡社長が語る任天堂はなぜ強い--「たかが娯楽」の産業創出力)，日経ビジネス，2007 年12 月17 日号，pp.28-33。 8. 任天堂次世代機の全貌第一部戦略それはNINTENDO64 の失敗体験から生まれた，日経エレクトロニクス，2006 年11 月20 日号，pp.148-152。 9. 開発者が振り返る PS3 にゴールはない、あるのはマイルストーン，日経エレクトロニクス，2006 年11 月20 日号，pp.62-64。 10. Leading Trend 解説、全貌を現したPS3 とWii、その開発思想を読み解くアプローチは好対照，日経エレクトロニクス， 2006 年12 月4 日号， pp.79-88。 11. 盟友・初心会を抜き打ち解散した山内・任天堂、焦りの流通改革，週刊東洋経済，1997 年3 月22 号，pp.116-119。 12. コンピュータエンターテインメントソフトウェア協会（2001-2010），CESA ゲーム白書。 13. 電通総研（2001-2010），情報メディア白書。 14. メディアクリエイト総研篇（2002-2010），テレビゲーム産業白書。四、網路資料 1. 聯合國教科文組織UNESCO, Cultural Industries http://www.unesco.org/culture/industries/trade/html_eng/question1.shtml#1 2. 任天堂日本官方網站，任天堂ホームページ http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ 3. SCE 日本官方網站，株式会社ソニー·コンピュータエンタテインメント http://www.scei.co.jp/
Description:	碩士國立政治大學企業管理研究所 100355005 101
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100355005
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Department of Business Administation] Theses

Files in This Item:

There are no files associated with this item.

社群 sharing

Loading...