So it's a bit refreshing to see the publishers finally realizing what we have known for years: way too many games come out during the holiday season, more than the market can possibly handle and consumers can possibly deal with.
Every year a lot (I believe the technical term is actually "shitload") of games come out, publishers hoping to score as many gift dollars as humanly possible. While the pursuit of money is certainly an admirable one, and sort of necessary where business is concerned, what ends up happening is that a simply obscene amount of games come out every week from around mid-October to early December. When I worked game retail, there were weeks where over one hundred new titles would drop within a matter of days. Granted, not every one of these is a big blockbuster Halo game; Some are little DS titles that nobody had ever heard of until they day they're put out onto the shelf, but they're still out there looking all shiny and trying to entice someone into a purchase. So over the course of a couple months you literally have hundreds of new titles coming out. Many of them are never highlighted, shoved down to that bottom area of the section that nobody ever looks at because all you can see are the spines of the cases, and while the ones deemed worthy are more prominently displayed there's still just a ton being pushed out there.
So we have retailers with limited space trying to highlight the few games they think are going to sell the best and make them the most money, meaning that the other 95 games that came out the same week are being all but ignored. We have publishers pouring advertising dollars into a select few games, but still releasing a bunch of others in the hopes of getting some clueless grandmother to totter into a store and pick up Kevin's Exciting Suburban Adventure (now with 65% more lawn-mowing action!). We have games cannibalizing the sales of other games, sometimes from the same studios. We have shoppers still gravitating towards the big releases, and by the end of the season the gamers simply have too many games to play.
That's a whole separate issue, that I'll probably touch upon in the near future (like tomorrow): so many games coming out that a person simply can't play them all.
This year, though, publishers seem to be getting a new idea: space out the releases a bit. Games are being pushed back, in many cases into next year, to free up the overbearing glut that usually assaults retailers and consumers during the holiday season. Ubisoft shifted Splinter Cell Conviction from it's fall release into next year so that it wouldn't be battling for space and sales with the publisher's other big release, Assassin's Creed 2.
So why does this make sense? Well, in the first case, publishers can pour their marketing efforts into one or two big titles, instead of splitting their attention across too many. Their games won't be stealing each others' thunder, and with the financial situation of the world consumers may not be buying as many games this year anyway. Gamers, as they finish the game they got as a present, will have the next blockbuster coming out to buy. There's all that gift cash/ gift card money burning holes in pockets, so giving them a big release to use it on a month or so after the holiday season has waned is a pretty good strategy.
This year should be a little different on the retail front, and if it pans out we could see this strategy continuing into the future. Personally, I'd rather see big releases throughout the year than everything shoved into the last couple months, and if the marketplace responds well this holiday season than we may start seeing just that.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Friday Night Fail: Turtle Soup
I'm not sure, in the grand scheme of gaming, there can be much worse a sin than making a game based upon the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles that is only meant for one player.
The series, whether it be the original dark black-and-white comic or the lighter toned cartoons, is all about teamwork between the four turtles. The previous video games have also highlighted this basic tenant of the franchise, in most cases offering multiplayer mutant hijinks.
So it's a bit of a letdown that with TMNT, the game based on the recent CGI movie, Ubisoft opted to stick to a completely single player adventure. For a series so firmly rooted in the ideas of family and friendship and cooperation, you'll be playing through this lackluster adventure alone.
The game loosely follows the plot of the movie, and plays a lot like Prince of Persia-lite: run along walls, vault up onto ledges, swing from poles, and perform all sorts of other crazy acrobatics throughout a variety of levels. The movement is actually pretty fast and smooth, and at times really does feel like the Persian princes upon which the game is obviously based, but it never manages to capture the real flavor of those other (superior) titles. The controls and camera flake out at random times, meaning that you'll plummet to your death on a jump that you thought was perfectly lined up, and some of the fancy moves just never seem to work exactly the way you think they're supposed to. It doesn't break the game, but it shows that less care was put into this game than into similar titles.
There's some combat, mostly against enemy ninjas and street punks, plus the occasional boss battle, but none of it really rises past the "generic action game" level.
Then, of course, we have the unforgivable sin of no multiplayer. Throughout the story you will play each of the turtles, one at a time, but it's never your choice. You'll play the one that you're supposed to play on each level, and the only time you'll see your brothers is when you initiate one of the super attacks in which they pop onscreen for a few seconds and go back to whatever limbo they were waiting in. In a game about teamwork, from a series about teamwork, it's pretty lame that the game itself offers no chance for real teamwork.
Oh, and the game can be completed, all achievements gained, in a matter of three to four hours. At no point is the game particularly challenging: you'll occasionally fall to your death and a few of the bosses pose some annoying challenge, but you'll always start right where you left off and you've got a pool of unlimited lives, so you can just try again until you get it right. The game isn't very long to begin with, there's not much along the way to really cause you much concern, and you'll just coast through the generic cityscape levels until you've reached the end.
Then again... I suppose if you're going to be playing this game (unless you say it's just for the gamerpoints), you won't want to get your friends to join in anyway. Then they'll just make fun of you for playing this crappy game.
The series, whether it be the original dark black-and-white comic or the lighter toned cartoons, is all about teamwork between the four turtles. The previous video games have also highlighted this basic tenant of the franchise, in most cases offering multiplayer mutant hijinks.
So it's a bit of a letdown that with TMNT, the game based on the recent CGI movie, Ubisoft opted to stick to a completely single player adventure. For a series so firmly rooted in the ideas of family and friendship and cooperation, you'll be playing through this lackluster adventure alone.
The game loosely follows the plot of the movie, and plays a lot like Prince of Persia-lite: run along walls, vault up onto ledges, swing from poles, and perform all sorts of other crazy acrobatics throughout a variety of levels. The movement is actually pretty fast and smooth, and at times really does feel like the Persian princes upon which the game is obviously based, but it never manages to capture the real flavor of those other (superior) titles. The controls and camera flake out at random times, meaning that you'll plummet to your death on a jump that you thought was perfectly lined up, and some of the fancy moves just never seem to work exactly the way you think they're supposed to. It doesn't break the game, but it shows that less care was put into this game than into similar titles.
There's some combat, mostly against enemy ninjas and street punks, plus the occasional boss battle, but none of it really rises past the "generic action game" level.
Then, of course, we have the unforgivable sin of no multiplayer. Throughout the story you will play each of the turtles, one at a time, but it's never your choice. You'll play the one that you're supposed to play on each level, and the only time you'll see your brothers is when you initiate one of the super attacks in which they pop onscreen for a few seconds and go back to whatever limbo they were waiting in. In a game about teamwork, from a series about teamwork, it's pretty lame that the game itself offers no chance for real teamwork.
Oh, and the game can be completed, all achievements gained, in a matter of three to four hours. At no point is the game particularly challenging: you'll occasionally fall to your death and a few of the bosses pose some annoying challenge, but you'll always start right where you left off and you've got a pool of unlimited lives, so you can just try again until you get it right. The game isn't very long to begin with, there's not much along the way to really cause you much concern, and you'll just coast through the generic cityscape levels until you've reached the end.
Then again... I suppose if you're going to be playing this game (unless you say it's just for the gamerpoints), you won't want to get your friends to join in anyway. Then they'll just make fun of you for playing this crappy game.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Gaming: Path to Enlightenment
Generally, a week doesn't go by without some old and out of touch someone-or-other bitching about how video games are evil and are rotting young people and turning them into mindless killing machines and elven heroes and stuff like that.
So it's refreshing to see someone say something positive about gaming for a change. Not just any someone, either, but the Karmapa Lama. For those of you who aren't up on your Buddhism, he's the only Buddhist leader recognized by the Chinese, Tibetan, and Indian governments.
At 24, Trinley Dorje is a lot like other young folks. He has an iPod, which among its selections includes some hip-hop tracks, and he also likes popping in the occasional video game.
In an interview with the Times of India, the young monk stated that he played games, and that he felt they could relieve stressful emotions:
"Well, I view video games as something of an emotional therapy, a mundane level of emotional therapy for me. We all have emotions whether we're Buddhist practitioners or not, all of us have emotions, happy emotions, sad emotions, displeased emotions and we need to figure out a way to deal with them when they arise.
So, for me sometimes it can be a relief, a kind of decompression to just play some video games. If I'm having some negative thoughts or negative feelings, video games are one way in which I can release that energy in the context of the illusion of the game. I feel better afterwards.
The aggression that comes out in the video game satiates whatever desire I might have to express that feeling. For me, that's very skillful because when I do that I don't have to go and hit anyone over the head."
So, there's a refreshing statement, though hardly surprising to anyone who does regularly play games to blow off some steam. Still nice to hear, especially from such an unusual source as a Buddhist monk.
He didn't, though, mention which games he uses to "decompress". Do you suppose the Karmapa Lama is a Halo player? More into the fast and furious fisticuffs of Soul Calibur 4, or the fast cars of Need for Speed?
Personally, I like to imagine the young bastion of Buddhism sitting back with some Grand Theft Auto 4. Just an entertaining visual, really.
So it's refreshing to see someone say something positive about gaming for a change. Not just any someone, either, but the Karmapa Lama. For those of you who aren't up on your Buddhism, he's the only Buddhist leader recognized by the Chinese, Tibetan, and Indian governments.
At 24, Trinley Dorje is a lot like other young folks. He has an iPod, which among its selections includes some hip-hop tracks, and he also likes popping in the occasional video game.
In an interview with the Times of India, the young monk stated that he played games, and that he felt they could relieve stressful emotions:
"Well, I view video games as something of an emotional therapy, a mundane level of emotional therapy for me. We all have emotions whether we're Buddhist practitioners or not, all of us have emotions, happy emotions, sad emotions, displeased emotions and we need to figure out a way to deal with them when they arise.
So, for me sometimes it can be a relief, a kind of decompression to just play some video games. If I'm having some negative thoughts or negative feelings, video games are one way in which I can release that energy in the context of the illusion of the game. I feel better afterwards.
The aggression that comes out in the video game satiates whatever desire I might have to express that feeling. For me, that's very skillful because when I do that I don't have to go and hit anyone over the head."
So, there's a refreshing statement, though hardly surprising to anyone who does regularly play games to blow off some steam. Still nice to hear, especially from such an unusual source as a Buddhist monk.
He didn't, though, mention which games he uses to "decompress". Do you suppose the Karmapa Lama is a Halo player? More into the fast and furious fisticuffs of Soul Calibur 4, or the fast cars of Need for Speed?
Personally, I like to imagine the young bastion of Buddhism sitting back with some Grand Theft Auto 4. Just an entertaining visual, really.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Point of No Returns
I was having a conversation with an old friend earlier, and we were discussing yesterday's post. More accurately, the point that only about 5% of people use online and/ or print ads when choosing their game purchases. More, according to NPD's survey, opt to rely on word-of-mouth or getting some hands-on time with the game at a friend's house.
One of the principal concerns, in his opinion, is the fact that new games cannot be returned once opened.
This thought makes quite a bit of sense, actually. Pretty much all retailers adhere to this policy, allowing only an even exchange for the same item once the seal is broken on a game, the same policy that governs CD and DVD purchases. The basic reasoning behind this, in my understanding, is a copyright issue: it's too easy to copy disc-based media. Someone could simply buy a CD, burn it to their computer, and then return it for a refund for whatever reason, so the policy is in place to protect all those along the chain who are making money off of the transaction. There could be other reasons behind the policy as well, but frankly I don't much care. That's not the point here.
The point is, the return policy is a detriment to game purchasing, at least in terms of people taking risks.
There are a lot of bad games out there. Some just suck, others are way too short, still others seem like one thing but end up just being something unexpected and not what the player was hoping for. They all, though, have the same issue: once it's opened, it's yours. So if you walk into a store and pick up TMNT, go home and beat it in the three hours it'll take you, you can't do much. You can hit up Lamestop or somewhere and do a trade-in, which is fine for older games you have sitting around but pretty insulting when you bought it earlier than afternoon and now you're expected to take $5 back on your $40 purchase. You might get lucky and pawn it off on a friend, but more often then not you'll be stuck with the failed purchase.
So is it any wonder that consumers are leery on trusting pretty print ads? There's really no going back once you put down your money, so all those people who got suckered by the cool looking Two Worlds ads got pretty well hosed.
As much as the industry laments the practice of used games, this is where they tend to lure consumers in my opinion. Stores that sell used product have a much more lenient return policy, allowing the buyer time to play the game and then bring it back for any reason. It's honestly the reason I've often waited for a used copy to hit the shelves, and I know that I'm not the only one. It's just nice to know that I have that safety net if I'm not too sure if I'm going to like a game.
So maybe publishers, rather than pointing fingers, need to work with their retail partners on revamping the return policies that are in place. Sure, they can cry about fear of piracy and such, and I'm in no way downplaying that concern, but let's be honest: for every one person out there who plans to buy a game and make an illegal copy of it, there are five hundred consumers who just want to buy the game for their kid and not have it totally suck ass. Plus, it will allow people to take some more "risks" when buying a game, and maybe people will be more willing to try out new IPs if they know they're not stuck with the game if it's not their cup of tea.
A complete overhaul of a system that's been in place for as long as I can remember. Nah, I'm not asking for too much, am I?
One of the principal concerns, in his opinion, is the fact that new games cannot be returned once opened.
This thought makes quite a bit of sense, actually. Pretty much all retailers adhere to this policy, allowing only an even exchange for the same item once the seal is broken on a game, the same policy that governs CD and DVD purchases. The basic reasoning behind this, in my understanding, is a copyright issue: it's too easy to copy disc-based media. Someone could simply buy a CD, burn it to their computer, and then return it for a refund for whatever reason, so the policy is in place to protect all those along the chain who are making money off of the transaction. There could be other reasons behind the policy as well, but frankly I don't much care. That's not the point here.
The point is, the return policy is a detriment to game purchasing, at least in terms of people taking risks.
There are a lot of bad games out there. Some just suck, others are way too short, still others seem like one thing but end up just being something unexpected and not what the player was hoping for. They all, though, have the same issue: once it's opened, it's yours. So if you walk into a store and pick up TMNT, go home and beat it in the three hours it'll take you, you can't do much. You can hit up Lamestop or somewhere and do a trade-in, which is fine for older games you have sitting around but pretty insulting when you bought it earlier than afternoon and now you're expected to take $5 back on your $40 purchase. You might get lucky and pawn it off on a friend, but more often then not you'll be stuck with the failed purchase.
So is it any wonder that consumers are leery on trusting pretty print ads? There's really no going back once you put down your money, so all those people who got suckered by the cool looking Two Worlds ads got pretty well hosed.
As much as the industry laments the practice of used games, this is where they tend to lure consumers in my opinion. Stores that sell used product have a much more lenient return policy, allowing the buyer time to play the game and then bring it back for any reason. It's honestly the reason I've often waited for a used copy to hit the shelves, and I know that I'm not the only one. It's just nice to know that I have that safety net if I'm not too sure if I'm going to like a game.
So maybe publishers, rather than pointing fingers, need to work with their retail partners on revamping the return policies that are in place. Sure, they can cry about fear of piracy and such, and I'm in no way downplaying that concern, but let's be honest: for every one person out there who plans to buy a game and make an illegal copy of it, there are five hundred consumers who just want to buy the game for their kid and not have it totally suck ass. Plus, it will allow people to take some more "risks" when buying a game, and maybe people will be more willing to try out new IPs if they know they're not stuck with the game if it's not their cup of tea.
A complete overhaul of a system that's been in place for as long as I can remember. Nah, I'm not asking for too much, am I?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Millions Misspent?
Here's some interesting numbers: According to a survey by the NPD group, as reported by Gamesindustry.biz, the millions that publishers spend on marketing their games may very well be money tossed down the drain.
According to the numbers, 41% of the gamers surveyed depend on word of mouth to figure out what games they want to buy. The next largest number is 31%, which is how many people make a decision based on hands-on play of a friend's or relative's copy of the title.
There was apparently some fluctuation between systems, but only about 5% of the respondents claimed that magazine or online ads help them decide if they should buy a game.
There were a bunch of numbers tossed around on a variety of other related subjects, but we're going to stop here for a moment. We're going to consider the millions of dollars spent on game advertising, the ads that show up in gaming magazines and online, the cost that is obviously transferred to the consumer wrapped up somewhere in the price of the title. Stop and think for a second: only five percent of people even care about any of that. So for the millions of dollars spent on the ad campaign, only five percent notice. Seems like a pretty phenomenal waste of resources, depending on how you look at it.
It makes sense, though. Think back to your own game purchasing: do you really see an ad in a magazine and rush out to buy the game? Are you more likely to buy a game that your friends are raving about, or one that you were playing over at your brother's house? How much does a picture in a magazine really count towards your decision? Personally, I skip past all of the ads when I'm reading a mag, and I generally ignore the banners or background ads when I'm perusing websites, and apparently 95% of the gamers surveyed by NPD feel the same.
I'm sure there are all sorts of rational reasons, numbers and charts and stuff, that back up why so much money is spent on ads, but when you look at the hard data in this survey it all seems pretty pointless.
So, as promised, the other highlights of the NPD survey:
10% of gamers surveyed owned a PS3, and they had the highest rate of owning another system. 42% of them also owned a Wii, and 34% owned an Xbox 360.
20% of gamers claimed the 360 as their console of choice, but also had a slightly lower rate of owning a second console. 42% of 360 owners also have a Wii, but 18% were also PS3 owners.
The inherent problem with surveying gamers is that most of them proudly own more than one console, though it was interesting to see a bit of a breakdown. More interesting would be to talk to more "casual" gamers, those that generally own only one machine, to see who has what in their homes.
In the gender breakdown, 56% of current generation gamers were male to 44% female (there was apparently no "other" category).
So there we go. Publishers spend way too much money on advertising, most gamers own more than one system, and the gender gap is minor at best (take a note there on that one, Sony).
According to the numbers, 41% of the gamers surveyed depend on word of mouth to figure out what games they want to buy. The next largest number is 31%, which is how many people make a decision based on hands-on play of a friend's or relative's copy of the title.
There was apparently some fluctuation between systems, but only about 5% of the respondents claimed that magazine or online ads help them decide if they should buy a game.
There were a bunch of numbers tossed around on a variety of other related subjects, but we're going to stop here for a moment. We're going to consider the millions of dollars spent on game advertising, the ads that show up in gaming magazines and online, the cost that is obviously transferred to the consumer wrapped up somewhere in the price of the title. Stop and think for a second: only five percent of people even care about any of that. So for the millions of dollars spent on the ad campaign, only five percent notice. Seems like a pretty phenomenal waste of resources, depending on how you look at it.
It makes sense, though. Think back to your own game purchasing: do you really see an ad in a magazine and rush out to buy the game? Are you more likely to buy a game that your friends are raving about, or one that you were playing over at your brother's house? How much does a picture in a magazine really count towards your decision? Personally, I skip past all of the ads when I'm reading a mag, and I generally ignore the banners or background ads when I'm perusing websites, and apparently 95% of the gamers surveyed by NPD feel the same.
I'm sure there are all sorts of rational reasons, numbers and charts and stuff, that back up why so much money is spent on ads, but when you look at the hard data in this survey it all seems pretty pointless.
So, as promised, the other highlights of the NPD survey:
10% of gamers surveyed owned a PS3, and they had the highest rate of owning another system. 42% of them also owned a Wii, and 34% owned an Xbox 360.
20% of gamers claimed the 360 as their console of choice, but also had a slightly lower rate of owning a second console. 42% of 360 owners also have a Wii, but 18% were also PS3 owners.
The inherent problem with surveying gamers is that most of them proudly own more than one console, though it was interesting to see a bit of a breakdown. More interesting would be to talk to more "casual" gamers, those that generally own only one machine, to see who has what in their homes.
In the gender breakdown, 56% of current generation gamers were male to 44% female (there was apparently no "other" category).
So there we go. Publishers spend way too much money on advertising, most gamers own more than one system, and the gender gap is minor at best (take a note there on that one, Sony).
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Friday Night Fail: Kicking and Screaming
I'll admit, I'm not much of a fighting game fan overall. I have my faves in the genre (Dead or Alive, Soul Calibur 4) and ones that I can tolerate if given the need (Mortal Kombat), but generally it's just not something I've ever gotten into outside of the basic online friendly competition aspect. I've also played the requisite 2D fighters that any gamer worth their salt should (Street Fighter), and while I've never been particularly good at them I can mash buttons randomly and make my onscreen character flail like an overly-muscled epileptic.
That being said, I can still tell a bad game when I see one, regardless of genre. So even though I'm not a fighting game master, I can safely inform you that Battle Fantasia for the 360 is a bad game.
Right from the start, it's clear that Battle Fantasia doesn't aim very high. The characters are generic and cliche from the large slow man in the mechanical suit to the quick little martial arts schoolgirl): the entire roster is pretty much a list of the rejects who didn't make the cut into other fighting games. The story, which to be fair is a bit like the appendix of any fighting game (read: useless), is especially pointless here, so at no point will you care about any of these characters or why they're doing battle with each other.
The action is pretty slow-moving, which is a death sentence for a 2D fighter. At no point do you get the frenetic sense of action that you do in other games of the genre, that balancing of fighting plus just keeping track of everything that's happening on the screen. There's often a delay between the press of a button and the accompanying action, again a cardinal sin for a genre built on split-second actions and reactions, and there's never a sense of solidly hitting your opponent. With a game like Street Fighter or Dead or Alive, when you connect you can practically feel it. From the sound to the reaction on-screen, those games offer an accurate visual representation of getting punched in the face. With Battle Fantasia, though, it just never gives the sense of a brutal fight. So aside from not caring why these generic rejects are fighting one another, you never get the sense that they're really doing a good job of it anyway.
The graphics are nothing impressive, and aside from the occasional screen-filling super attack there are barely any cool effects. The sound consists of the same grunts and yells that you'll hear in any fighting game, but like everything else in this game they sound like the rejects from the cutting room floor of other, superior titles in the genre. The difficulty is seemingly random (I beat the first character easily, but the second completely kicked my ass in no time flat), and I didn't get the feeling that I was progressing towards a goal at any point. Even in something like Mortal Kombat, the characters are fighting with some semblance of purpose, but here I was just making one lame character weakly punch another lame character.
Even for someone like me, who openly admits to not being into fighters, it's clear from the very start that Battle Fantasia is just not a good game. Didn't even score any achievements from my time with it. Total fail.
That being said, I can still tell a bad game when I see one, regardless of genre. So even though I'm not a fighting game master, I can safely inform you that Battle Fantasia for the 360 is a bad game.
Right from the start, it's clear that Battle Fantasia doesn't aim very high. The characters are generic and cliche from the large slow man in the mechanical suit to the quick little martial arts schoolgirl): the entire roster is pretty much a list of the rejects who didn't make the cut into other fighting games. The story, which to be fair is a bit like the appendix of any fighting game (read: useless), is especially pointless here, so at no point will you care about any of these characters or why they're doing battle with each other.
The action is pretty slow-moving, which is a death sentence for a 2D fighter. At no point do you get the frenetic sense of action that you do in other games of the genre, that balancing of fighting plus just keeping track of everything that's happening on the screen. There's often a delay between the press of a button and the accompanying action, again a cardinal sin for a genre built on split-second actions and reactions, and there's never a sense of solidly hitting your opponent. With a game like Street Fighter or Dead or Alive, when you connect you can practically feel it. From the sound to the reaction on-screen, those games offer an accurate visual representation of getting punched in the face. With Battle Fantasia, though, it just never gives the sense of a brutal fight. So aside from not caring why these generic rejects are fighting one another, you never get the sense that they're really doing a good job of it anyway.
The graphics are nothing impressive, and aside from the occasional screen-filling super attack there are barely any cool effects. The sound consists of the same grunts and yells that you'll hear in any fighting game, but like everything else in this game they sound like the rejects from the cutting room floor of other, superior titles in the genre. The difficulty is seemingly random (I beat the first character easily, but the second completely kicked my ass in no time flat), and I didn't get the feeling that I was progressing towards a goal at any point. Even in something like Mortal Kombat, the characters are fighting with some semblance of purpose, but here I was just making one lame character weakly punch another lame character.
Even for someone like me, who openly admits to not being into fighters, it's clear from the very start that Battle Fantasia is just not a good game. Didn't even score any achievements from my time with it. Total fail.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Missing the Mark
I hadn't even noticed the big ad in my local mall, at least not at first. It's a sign boldly proclaiming "OMG lilac PSP", and underneath this large letters is a picture of Sony's newly colored handheld. It also points out that the package includes the new Hannah Montana game, obviously intended to make little girls who are walking through the mall squeal in glee and insist that mommy and daddy buy them one right away.
It was fellow blogger The Game Dame who, seeing a similar ad on her PS3 with young women laughing while they play with the lilac system under the same OMG tagline, pointed out how inappropriate the ad campaign really is. I'm not going to repeat her rant here, and I suggest that you do hop on over to her site and check it out, but she does raise a pretty important point.
As part of her post, she linked to a Joystiq article in which John Koller from SCEA states "The gaming world has traditionally been a male domain, but today we're seeing more and more female gamers, particularly on portable devices. While SCEA has a broad range of PSP owners from under 12 to over 45 years old, we saw a tremendous opportunity to connect with the female gamer and 'tween' demographic and create a PSP system girls will love".
Of course, this quote proves that the thought process over at casa de Sony, which lead to the creation of a lilac PSP/ Hannah Montana package, is just ever so slightly off the mark.
For the record, my 13 year old daughter, the "target demographic" for this travesty, felt that the lilac color was way too pink for her liking, and she absolutely despises all things Hannah Montana. She'd much rather curl up with her black DS and play Mario Kart or Pokemon Platinum.
Sony needs to stop trying so hard to fit in, most likely fire its marketing department, and realize that instead of trying to force a specific product onto a "demographic" they just need to make a product that people of any age or gender would actually want to play. Nintendo offers a variety of colors, without trying to push one or the other onto a certain group, and they focus more on a variety of gaming options that could appeal to a variety of gamers without waving one around and yelling "here's a boy game" or "here's a girl game".
Yes, Sony, we all know that you helped bring gaming into the mainstream with the PS2. You've reminded us of this fact at every opportunity, but now all you're doing is proving how out of touch with that mainstream you really are.
By comparison, let's look at Nintendo's new TV spots for Professor Layton and the Diabolical Box. We see a woman playing the game, we see close-ups of the puzzle she's trying to solve, we get a few good shots of her holding a DSi system as she furrows her brow in thought. She's not scantily-clad, she's not playing "Ballerina Babysitter Fashion Madness", and she's not holding a pink system because she's a girl. Sure, there may be quite a few females who see the ad and get interested in the game, as it is intended to do, but it does so tastefully. It nails the intent of getting casual gamers into the idea of playing a video game, a hobby they may have thought was full of sweaty guys playing games about killing stuff, and it doesn't insult intelligence or gender.
The gaming industry keeps hollering about how they're not the stereotypical basement dwelling freaky boys playing Final Fantasy, about how they need to change public image, but Sony's ad campaign here only proves that the industry itself is holding that back now and again.
Now, if you don't mind, I need to get back to playing Star Wars: Battlefront 2 with my teenage daughter. And no, Sony, it's not on a pink console, and none of the stormtroopers are wearing pretty bows...
It was fellow blogger The Game Dame who, seeing a similar ad on her PS3 with young women laughing while they play with the lilac system under the same OMG tagline, pointed out how inappropriate the ad campaign really is. I'm not going to repeat her rant here, and I suggest that you do hop on over to her site and check it out, but she does raise a pretty important point.
As part of her post, she linked to a Joystiq article in which John Koller from SCEA states "The gaming world has traditionally been a male domain, but today we're seeing more and more female gamers, particularly on portable devices. While SCEA has a broad range of PSP owners from under 12 to over 45 years old, we saw a tremendous opportunity to connect with the female gamer and 'tween' demographic and create a PSP system girls will love".
Of course, this quote proves that the thought process over at casa de Sony, which lead to the creation of a lilac PSP/ Hannah Montana package, is just ever so slightly off the mark.
For the record, my 13 year old daughter, the "target demographic" for this travesty, felt that the lilac color was way too pink for her liking, and she absolutely despises all things Hannah Montana. She'd much rather curl up with her black DS and play Mario Kart or Pokemon Platinum.
Sony needs to stop trying so hard to fit in, most likely fire its marketing department, and realize that instead of trying to force a specific product onto a "demographic" they just need to make a product that people of any age or gender would actually want to play. Nintendo offers a variety of colors, without trying to push one or the other onto a certain group, and they focus more on a variety of gaming options that could appeal to a variety of gamers without waving one around and yelling "here's a boy game" or "here's a girl game".
Yes, Sony, we all know that you helped bring gaming into the mainstream with the PS2. You've reminded us of this fact at every opportunity, but now all you're doing is proving how out of touch with that mainstream you really are.
By comparison, let's look at Nintendo's new TV spots for Professor Layton and the Diabolical Box. We see a woman playing the game, we see close-ups of the puzzle she's trying to solve, we get a few good shots of her holding a DSi system as she furrows her brow in thought. She's not scantily-clad, she's not playing "Ballerina Babysitter Fashion Madness", and she's not holding a pink system because she's a girl. Sure, there may be quite a few females who see the ad and get interested in the game, as it is intended to do, but it does so tastefully. It nails the intent of getting casual gamers into the idea of playing a video game, a hobby they may have thought was full of sweaty guys playing games about killing stuff, and it doesn't insult intelligence or gender.
The gaming industry keeps hollering about how they're not the stereotypical basement dwelling freaky boys playing Final Fantasy, about how they need to change public image, but Sony's ad campaign here only proves that the industry itself is holding that back now and again.
Now, if you don't mind, I need to get back to playing Star Wars: Battlefront 2 with my teenage daughter. And no, Sony, it's not on a pink console, and none of the stormtroopers are wearing pretty bows...
Friday, September 4, 2009
News Stories: 9/3/09
Some various news stories hit the wire over the last day or so that piqued my interest, and all but one of them involve Sony in some way or another.
We'll start out with a Sony tale of fail: Coming from news site Siliconera, it's being reported that digital downloads for the PSP are going to cost the same as the retail releases of the same game. This is a bit of a shock to those that generally believe that downloads cost less than the games in brick-and-mortar stores. Since there is no packaging or manual printing, which adds to the cost of a retail game, usually downloads can come in cheaper. In addition, Sony has been selling digital downloads in Japan for less than their retail counterparts, so to have the pricing changed for US releases is just bizarre.
It's also reported that in some cases, such as the upcoming Persona title from Atlus, it's actually a better deal to get in stores rather than through digital distribution. The game is the same, but the retail release will include a two-disc soundtrack. So for the same money, you get more. I'm all for the increased interest in downloadable titles, but in this case there doesn't seem to be much point to it at all. If Sony is serious about following through on digital downloads, especially with the PSP Go coming out and pretty much depending on them, then they're going to have to slap whoever decided that this pricing is a good idea.
The next story is also Sony related, but is less "fail" and more "it's about freaking time": Sony Worldwide Studios head Shuhei Yoshida has come forth and admitted that the PS3's online network is not up to par with the competition. He points out some of the decisions that were made, which now have proven to be behind the curve, and that they are taking steps to catch up in the online gaming space. He points out the importance of social networking, such as Facebook, to the overall online strategy.
Now, I'm all for social networking (and you can become a fan of The Grumbly Gamer on Facebook here), but I still think they're missing the point. To be fair, though, this is a point of contention I have with Xbox Live as well. Rather than giving us more bells and whistles, how about just making sure we have the best online gaming experience? If I want to go onto Facebook, I have a laptop to do that. If I want to tweet random thoughts on Twitter (TheGrumblyGamer, by the way), I can do so with my computer or my cell phone. I have no interest in doing so on my console, so stop trying to impress me and spend more time insuring that my online gaming is lag/ glitch free. How about spending more money on matchmaking or anti-douchebag technology and less on crap that we can get elsewhere (and with more functionality, what with them newfangled keyboards PCs have these days).
Moving on, the last story for tonight is one I'm still not sure I fully believe, but it was reported through the site Kombo. According to this article, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 for the PS3 (a remake of Ninja Gaiden 2 for the Xbox 360) is going to utilize the motion sensitivity of the Sixaxis controller to... make female characters' boobs bounce.
It had already been reported that the PS3 version of the game is going to cut down on the dizzying amount of blood and gore featured in the Xbox 360 one, so to make up for this fact we're apparently going to get to make our well-endowed avatar's breasts move whenever we shake the controller.
Again, I'm taking this one with a pretty large grain of salt, but Tecmo is certainly known for pushing the envelope when it comes to stuff like this (meaning boobs), so it could very well be completely true.
I've been wracking my brain trying to come up with an appropriately sarcastic comment to this, but frankly I think it speaks for itself, so whatever you're thinking about it right now is probably going to be just fine. Besides, if I think too hard about it I end up just doing a Beavis and Butthead style laugh followed by "He said boobs".
I think we'll end there.
We'll start out with a Sony tale of fail: Coming from news site Siliconera, it's being reported that digital downloads for the PSP are going to cost the same as the retail releases of the same game. This is a bit of a shock to those that generally believe that downloads cost less than the games in brick-and-mortar stores. Since there is no packaging or manual printing, which adds to the cost of a retail game, usually downloads can come in cheaper. In addition, Sony has been selling digital downloads in Japan for less than their retail counterparts, so to have the pricing changed for US releases is just bizarre.
It's also reported that in some cases, such as the upcoming Persona title from Atlus, it's actually a better deal to get in stores rather than through digital distribution. The game is the same, but the retail release will include a two-disc soundtrack. So for the same money, you get more. I'm all for the increased interest in downloadable titles, but in this case there doesn't seem to be much point to it at all. If Sony is serious about following through on digital downloads, especially with the PSP Go coming out and pretty much depending on them, then they're going to have to slap whoever decided that this pricing is a good idea.
The next story is also Sony related, but is less "fail" and more "it's about freaking time": Sony Worldwide Studios head Shuhei Yoshida has come forth and admitted that the PS3's online network is not up to par with the competition. He points out some of the decisions that were made, which now have proven to be behind the curve, and that they are taking steps to catch up in the online gaming space. He points out the importance of social networking, such as Facebook, to the overall online strategy.
Now, I'm all for social networking (and you can become a fan of The Grumbly Gamer on Facebook here), but I still think they're missing the point. To be fair, though, this is a point of contention I have with Xbox Live as well. Rather than giving us more bells and whistles, how about just making sure we have the best online gaming experience? If I want to go onto Facebook, I have a laptop to do that. If I want to tweet random thoughts on Twitter (TheGrumblyGamer, by the way), I can do so with my computer or my cell phone. I have no interest in doing so on my console, so stop trying to impress me and spend more time insuring that my online gaming is lag/ glitch free. How about spending more money on matchmaking or anti-douchebag technology and less on crap that we can get elsewhere (and with more functionality, what with them newfangled keyboards PCs have these days).
Moving on, the last story for tonight is one I'm still not sure I fully believe, but it was reported through the site Kombo. According to this article, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 for the PS3 (a remake of Ninja Gaiden 2 for the Xbox 360) is going to utilize the motion sensitivity of the Sixaxis controller to... make female characters' boobs bounce.
It had already been reported that the PS3 version of the game is going to cut down on the dizzying amount of blood and gore featured in the Xbox 360 one, so to make up for this fact we're apparently going to get to make our well-endowed avatar's breasts move whenever we shake the controller.
Again, I'm taking this one with a pretty large grain of salt, but Tecmo is certainly known for pushing the envelope when it comes to stuff like this (meaning boobs), so it could very well be completely true.
I've been wracking my brain trying to come up with an appropriately sarcastic comment to this, but frankly I think it speaks for itself, so whatever you're thinking about it right now is probably going to be just fine. Besides, if I think too hard about it I end up just doing a Beavis and Butthead style laugh followed by "He said boobs".
I think we'll end there.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Never a Dull Moment
Gamers are an opinionated bunch. That's not exactly news, of course: check out any game-related forum or even hang out in a video game store long enough, and you'll hear opinions on everything from which system is "best" to which genre is the one you should be playing (and, of course, you'll find out that you're dumb for not immediately agreeing with said opinions).
Naturally, those who make games are in many cases gamers themselves, and therefore quite often have opinions of their own.
Sometimes, opinions collide and chaos ensues, such as in a tale starring David Jaffe (God of War) and some bloggers.
Mr. Jaffe, like many developers, has very strong thoughts concerning the resale of used video games at retailers such as Gamestop. His opinions actually fall in line with many in the industry, essentially that the sale of used games in the long run hurts the publishers and developers of those games. Since the makers don't see any sort of compensation from used game sales, and retailers like Gamestop push the used product so they themselves can turn a tidy profit. The argument isn't new by any means, nor is it any closer to a resolution, but via Twitter Dave Jaffe reiterated his thoughts on the matter. While he stated that gamers are certainly entitled to get the best deal they can, and have the right to resell their own property as they see fit, the main thrust of his statements revolved around his feeling that developers should see some sort of compensation from the sale of the used games. With studios closing down, developers struggling, and even the big publishers feeling the economic strain, this idea isn't exactly a big leap.
After stating his opinion, gamers responded, mostly contesting his thoughts. A great transcript of the conversation can be found here, as the "Stupid Evil Bastard" on that site was one of the principal players in the conversation.
More criticism came from the forums at NeoGaf, culminating in this post right here. After further trying to defend his opinions, Jaffe finally throws up his (virtual) hands with the realization that no matter what he says or how he says it, it's going to get twisted around.
Jaffe then goes ahead and makes a bold claim: that he's going to "shut the f*ck up" for a period of six months. Sick of having anything he says misrepresented (his words), he's going to swear off anything outside of official communications. This means no blogging, no Twitter, no comments or updates or statements on social networking sites like Facebook. He even states that if someone catches him saying anything during this self-imposed verbal embargo, he'll toss them a free copy of his next game. He does clarify that he's still going to do his job, and make official statements and interviews and such, but no more opinions on his own time.
I've been developing a serious respect for David Jaffe through all of this (and really, playing God of War is on my rather long list of games I'll eventually purchase and get through). He stated his thoughts, defended said thoughts, and when he realized that he was fighting a losing battle he bowed out rather than keep running around in circles. At first I thought he shouldn't have taken the "six months of silence" route, thinking that he was letting them win by turning tail and hiding. He has every right to say what he wants when he wants to.
After some thought, though, I understand his desire to just turn away. Mr. Jaffe (yea, like he's reading this), I applaud your decision. There's only so much arguing you can do, so much fighting and defending, before it just gets pointless. You're in the unfortunate position, being a known entity within the gaming world, of having your statements scrutinized even more than your average blogger, and I can only imagine how trying that can get. When everyone is digging in their heels, standing firm on their statements, eventually someone has to give before the whole thing just gets silly.
Take some time off, David, and we'll see you in six months. I can't promise that things will have changed much, though.
Naturally, those who make games are in many cases gamers themselves, and therefore quite often have opinions of their own.
Sometimes, opinions collide and chaos ensues, such as in a tale starring David Jaffe (God of War) and some bloggers.
Mr. Jaffe, like many developers, has very strong thoughts concerning the resale of used video games at retailers such as Gamestop. His opinions actually fall in line with many in the industry, essentially that the sale of used games in the long run hurts the publishers and developers of those games. Since the makers don't see any sort of compensation from used game sales, and retailers like Gamestop push the used product so they themselves can turn a tidy profit. The argument isn't new by any means, nor is it any closer to a resolution, but via Twitter Dave Jaffe reiterated his thoughts on the matter. While he stated that gamers are certainly entitled to get the best deal they can, and have the right to resell their own property as they see fit, the main thrust of his statements revolved around his feeling that developers should see some sort of compensation from the sale of the used games. With studios closing down, developers struggling, and even the big publishers feeling the economic strain, this idea isn't exactly a big leap.
After stating his opinion, gamers responded, mostly contesting his thoughts. A great transcript of the conversation can be found here, as the "Stupid Evil Bastard" on that site was one of the principal players in the conversation.
More criticism came from the forums at NeoGaf, culminating in this post right here. After further trying to defend his opinions, Jaffe finally throws up his (virtual) hands with the realization that no matter what he says or how he says it, it's going to get twisted around.
Jaffe then goes ahead and makes a bold claim: that he's going to "shut the f*ck up" for a period of six months. Sick of having anything he says misrepresented (his words), he's going to swear off anything outside of official communications. This means no blogging, no Twitter, no comments or updates or statements on social networking sites like Facebook. He even states that if someone catches him saying anything during this self-imposed verbal embargo, he'll toss them a free copy of his next game. He does clarify that he's still going to do his job, and make official statements and interviews and such, but no more opinions on his own time.
I've been developing a serious respect for David Jaffe through all of this (and really, playing God of War is on my rather long list of games I'll eventually purchase and get through). He stated his thoughts, defended said thoughts, and when he realized that he was fighting a losing battle he bowed out rather than keep running around in circles. At first I thought he shouldn't have taken the "six months of silence" route, thinking that he was letting them win by turning tail and hiding. He has every right to say what he wants when he wants to.
After some thought, though, I understand his desire to just turn away. Mr. Jaffe (yea, like he's reading this), I applaud your decision. There's only so much arguing you can do, so much fighting and defending, before it just gets pointless. You're in the unfortunate position, being a known entity within the gaming world, of having your statements scrutinized even more than your average blogger, and I can only imagine how trying that can get. When everyone is digging in their heels, standing firm on their statements, eventually someone has to give before the whole thing just gets silly.
Take some time off, David, and we'll see you in six months. I can't promise that things will have changed much, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
