Home
So Sam is absolutely correct. If the goal of the industry is to broaden the appeal of the medium beyond the existing audience, the onus for change is on game designers, developers and publishers. But as they say, the first step in solving a problem is to first acknowledge there is a problem. "
I knew nothing about the Deus Ex franchise when I played Human Revolution so I had no expectations for the game. There was nothing controversial about the ending to me because without a prior emotional or financial investment in the story and characters, nothing in Human Revolution made me care about how the game ended. But for players who were emotionally and financially invested in the franchise, their reaction to the game and the ending was probably radically different than my own. So the question is did Eidos understand what their established audience reasonably expected to find in Human Revolution? Or did they simply design the game as they saw fit without giving consideration to the expectations of the established audience? And what claims or promises did Eidos make about Human Revolution to the established audience before releasing the game?
Based on what I've read, it seems like the development team allowed the feedback of other game developers and Eidos's marketing department to play a larger role in guiding the design of the game than what they knew the established audience expected. So Eidos deserves some level of criticism for this alone.
Mass Effect is however, a completely different story. Mass Effect 3 created a massive controversy because on one hand, EA-Bioware completely failed to deliver the features, functionality and content needed to make the advertising and promotion of the game, and the franchise truthful and legal. On the other hand, EA-Bioware failed to acknowledge they had an ethical obligation to deliver their "artistic vision" for the game within the framework created by the premise of the franchise and the reasonable expectations of the audience. Multiple and drastically different endings to the trilogy were clearly demanded but EA-Bioware simply chose to ignore their obligation to provide them so they could cut costs and maximize their profits.
So yes, EA-Bioware deserved all of the criticism they received for Mass Effect 3. In fact, thus far they've gotten off relatively easy considering that a very strong argument can, and still may be made that they violated consumer protection and deceptive business practices laws with the marketing and promotion of both Mass Effect 2 and 3.
Ultimately, the lesson the AAA industry must learn from these types of controversies is: the fact that games are now a protected form of free speech and art does not mean developers and publishers are protected against the consequences of ignoring their obligations. If consumers can't trust or believe AAA developers and publishers, it erodes confidence in the entire market and it inevitably drives consumers out of the market. This is why meeting reasonable consumer expectations is a foundation for building brand loyalty and integrity."
"It’s nobody’s fault that Nintendo Power is gone..."
As someone with more than 20 years of consumer magazine publishing experience, I can tell you Nintendo Power went out of business for the same reason that so many other magazines have failed since the recession began. The people who owned and operated the magazines failed to accept an inconvenient truth about advertising: all advertising revenue based publishing models will eventually fail. And when they do, the only magazines that will survive are those owned by companies with deep pockets and are willing to continue publishing at a loss until adjustments in the business strategy can be made. This applies to the smallest trade magazines to the largest international consumer magazines.
So Nintendo Power has been forced to close because the business and circulation execs failed to adjust their business model and strategy before it was too late. They refused to accept the short term reduction in profitability, or losses that would have allowed the magazines to prepare for and survive future trends and changes in the market.
"But the fact is that the transition from publications to internet doesn’t represent two completely different worlds coming into conflict."
When content delivery transitions away from a medium that primarily focuses on providing consumers with objective content they value enough to pay for, and content delivery transitions towards a medium that primarily focuses on creating vehicles for advertisers to market their products and services to consumers... it absolutely does represent two completely different worlds coming into conflict. And when they do, consumers pay the price.
If you don't understand why this is so problematic, simply read (or re-read) the editorial Dan Hsu wrote back in 2005: http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=6228583&publicUserId=5379799 This type of behavior is not the exception to the rule, it is the reason why the large gaming sites like IGN and Game Informer exist. In print, there was a church - state separation between the objectivity of editorial reporting and opinion and the business interests of advertisers. A separation which the vast majority of editors and publishers voluntarily honored. In new media, this separation and honor system has never existed.
Regardless of what the AAA industry claims, the reality is the used game market is a symptom, it's not the disease. Even if resellers agreed to share a percentage of the profits, it wouldn't solve the root problem. Because it's the industry's own business practices and it's adversarial relationship with consumers that has fueled the growth of the used game market.
Why are so many consumers are unwilling to pay the full retail price for most AAA games? Because developers and publishers have repeatedly burned consumers in recent years by flooding the market with over priced, over hyped, low quality crap. When the industry sells games like Apache: Air Assault for the same price as games like Red Dead Redemption, it destroys consumer confidence in the products and market. Paying full price becomes a gamble instead of a reliable and predictable experience. Because as a consumer, you lose the ability to gauge the value of the games. So consumers either drop out of the AAA market, or they look for methods to reduce the price of the games. And for millions of consumers, that method has become Game Stop's resale business.
Unfortunately, instead of addressing the actual problem... themselves, developers and publishers want to scapegoat Game Stop and the resale market. So they've resorted to sabotaging the value of used games with DRM and or project ten dollar DLC lock outs. Which further erodes consumer confidence in the market and creates animosity towards the developers and publishers. This has become a cannibalistic cycle that will not end until the industry radically alters or abandons it's current business practices. But as they say, the first step toward recovery is admitting that you have a problem. Sadly, AAA developers and publishers are still in denial. "
Thanks for confirming what I've been telling people for years about Game Stop's used game business. Do you know if GS has publicly stated these stats?"
But what really infuriates me is many of these people seriously believe they've "earned" the right to be embraced by the mainstream audience and treated with the same level of respect as reputable artists and businesses in other forms of commercial art and entertainment. This is like the cast of Jersey Shore demanding the audience show them the same respect they'd show the cast of an Oscar winning movie or Tony award winning play. Its time for the industry to learn the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do to you. If the industry wants mainstream respect... the industry must respect the mainstream audience. If the industry continues to mislead, deceive and cheat the mainstream audience, they'll continue to treat the industry like a sociopathic snake oil salesman. "
It certainly seems like this will be the case and it's confusing because Nintendo's success in the console market over the past 10 to 15 years has been largely based on a Blue Ocean strategy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ocean_Strategy
A BOS basically means you don't attempt to compete head to head with companies in an established market for the existing audience. You create a new market with distruptive technology that appeals to consumers not being served by the products or services in the existing market. But in the AAA market, the majority of the audience's needs are not currently being addressed or served by MS, Sony or AAA developers. So with the right library of games and services, the Wii U could potentially disrupt MS and Sony's market and audience. Which is why copying MS and Sony's business models makes no sense.
I'd like to see how Nintendo will market and promote the Wii U as the release date nears before I pass judgement. I think you're right but I hope you're wrong."
However, I do go out of my way to remind those who work in the AAA industry and in the media that it is people like myself who represent the majority of the core audience, not 16 to 23 year old male hardcore multiplayer fans. The majority responsible for practically all AAA game sales per year. The majority that has never been motivated to participate in any form of play by a desire for unrealistic levels of "challenge," abuse or failure. The majority that is sick to death of having toys designed for sadomasochistic man-boys forced down their throats under intentionally false and misleading pretenses. And the majority who the AAA industry must retain while also attracting new players into the market in order to survive in the coming years. Because no business or industry can survive in a free market by ignoring the preferences and needs of 99 percent of their audience so they can exclusively pander to a tiny, toxic sub-segment of the audience.
So the question is will AAA designers, developers and publishers be smart enough to proactively make the changes needed to realign themselves with their actual audience? Or will they continue to attempt to have their cake and eat it too, until it's too late? Based on their behavior over the past several years, there's a very high probability it will be the latter. And honestly, this is the best case scenario for casual, core, mid-core and hardcore players. Because the market and the medium simply cannot grow or evolve until people like John Riccitiello, Bobby Kotick, Yves Guillemot, Brian Farrell, Cliff Bleszinski, Jason West, Vince Zampella, David Vonderhaar, Christine Norman, etc... are no longer part of the equation. The sooner it happens, the better off we'll all be."
But what these huge corporations have forgetten is the people who purchase their products are consumers, not "fans." And like it or not, the reasonable, valid and legitimate complaints of consumers cannot be dismissed under the pretense they are the subjective interpretations of "art" by "fans" or fanboys. Because consumers, unlike fanboys, have clearly defined legal rights and protections.
Did consumers have a legitimate legal right to demand refunds because the ending of Mass Effect 3 was "bad?" No, they did not. But did consumers have a legitimate legal right to demand refunds because EA-Bioware (and their proxies in the media) engaged in deceptive business practices with the marketing, advertising and promotion of both Mass Effect sequels? Yes, they absolutely did. False and misleading claims were made about both sequels but what EA-Bioware did with Mass Effect 2 was actually far worse because it amounted to a product bait and switch. They marketed and advertised an RPG but the game they sold to consumers (as the lead designer now freely admits) was redsigned to be a shooter. Mass Effect 2 should have triggered an FTC investigation and a massive fine.
Unfortunately, the AAA industry has developed a false sense of invulnerability on this subject because until recently, the business and marketing practices of the game industry were off the radar of the government and private agencies who monitor and regulate the consumer product market. But Mass Effect 3 changed everything. So AAA designers, developers and publishers should think twice before they intentionally mislead consumers in the future."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Weiss"