In this month's Wired Magazine, in which Martha Stewart graces the cover with a Wii cake that oddly looks more like a 360 to me, is a brief article on a study which implies the utter failure of advertising in games. The article states that spending on such endeavors is set to increase from $56 million in 2005 to approximately $732 million in 2010. This seems insane, but publishers have been lining up to take advantage of this new revenue stream. And advertisers are quickly losing people like me, who are in the most coveted demographic, as we switch our time from channel surfing to gaming.
This trend seems to be a knee jerk reaction to a declining industry. Advertising has been struggling for years. As people assimilate new technologies into their lives, such as TiVo and high speed Internet, commercials and traditional advertising methods become less and less relevant. Mitch Davis, a software executive, noticed that gamers where already glued to the video output device in front of them and that there were built in locations for advertising. While he became $200 million richer by selling the resulting company, Massive, to Microsoft, advertising groups have been flocking to deliver profitable in-game ads to no avail.
Maybe I'm impervious to advertising, but I could not tell you the last billboard I saw. The medium is quite ineffective in general practice, let alone in a game where the player can be more engrossed than if he or she were actually driving. In Luke Sullivan's Hey Whipple, Squeeze This (a marketing book I had to read in college) he describes the approximately 4,827 billboards left on the highways as "4,827 too many." He further quotes famous 50's copywriter, Howard Gossage:
An advertising medium is a medium that incidentally carries advertising but whose primary function is to provide something else: entertainment, news, etc.... Your exposure to television commercials is conditional on their being accompanied by entertainment that is not otherwise available. No such parity or tit for tat exchange exists in outdoor advertising... I'm afraid the poor old billboard doesn't qualify as a medium at all; its medium, if any, is the scenery around it and that is not its to give away.
As gaming is an interactive medium and we have a modicum of control on the direction most games take, and therefore, scenery that's not the advertising's to give away. Advertising will have it's place in gaming. It will and should be used to flesh out and create a more believable environments under the right circumstances. In the end, though, the ads will mostly be forgotten as soon as it enters the brain. There is too much going on for the player to internalize any advertising in games. It is a shame how much money will be poured into these game ads, interrupting our experience, in an attempt to wrestle our money away from us. Create a quality product that meets a need and we'll find you.
Roger Ebert brought the wrath of an entire industry down on himself by declaring that video games are not art. Well, after author Clive Barker called him out on it, Mr. Ebert clarified his statement. Video games will never be high art was the new mantra from the man who reviews movies. Knowing the people who make up the video game fan base, this was never going to fly either. Who will step up next to defend our medium from the realm of art mediocrity? N'gai Croal, Newsweek superblogger, to the rescue of gamers everywhere.
Wow. Only two paragraphs into his column, Ebert proceeds to dismiss an entire medium in just five sentences--two rhetorical questions; a list; and an assertion--none of which display much familiarity with the subject. Ebert knows roughly how many games he's played; were the number high enough for him to speak authoritatively, he'd have said so. It's no accident that the one game he cites by name is Myst, because that 13-year-old title--whose reputation is somewhat tattered as befits its stature as one of this emerging medium's evolutionary dead ends--is probably the last game that he played for any meaningful length of time.
If someone went on a jeremiad about the current state of movies, but the last movie they'd seen was the 1994 flick "The Specialist," I doubt that Ebert would take them seriously. Similarly, if someone were to attack the entire medium of film on the grounds that they tend to involve (1) romance and comedy, (2) action and suspense and (3) don't do a good job of portraying characters' interior lives, Ebert would likely be dismissive. Yet he feels quite comfortable making pronouncements about videogames whose sweep is matched only by their ignorance.
I don't personally have a subscription to Game Informer, but there are so many people at work that do, I usually get a chance to at least flip through the pages. The current issue, August 2007, includes a quick article titled, 'The Ties That Divide.' The article sheds some light on the inner workings of the publisher/developer relationship. It is no secret that these alliances can be quite uncomfortable under even the best of situations. Still, it never ceases to amaze me how easy it is for each side to quickly turn on each other. Unfortunately, as the article points out, it largely comes down to money. In a tug of war match that becomes the milestone system, it is largely forgotten that we are all on the same team, with, assumably, the same goal: to make a great game and a lot of money.
The article quickly mentions that one of the first things to go when the ax begins to fall is QA. As one anonymous producer points out and the author elaborates,
'The money people are like [Quality Assurance] doesn't make us any money. Shipping a game and selling it makes us money. [Developers] being happy after the fact don't make us money.' Many developers told us that this stage is crucial because it's when a game comes together and gets polish - which often separates the good titles from the bad.
The majority of the time I feel like we are a third tier to contend against the developers and publishers, despite the fact that we technically part of the publishers. We are still seen as the whipping boy; but lack power to fight back against the publisher's money or developer's superior knowledge of the game. It's nice to read that there are developers out there that appreciate what QA can do for a game, it is just not what I see on a day to day basis.
Far too often, we deal with developers that don't have the time or money to fix issues, were so cheap to begin with that they don't know how to fix an issue, or they want the game to work their way and disregard what Nintendo requires of a game. On the other hand, our company, as the publisher, is pushing dates down our throats and berating us for finding issues that threaten those dates. The article suggests that Marketing can be one of a publisher's greatest strength that they bring to the table. They're fine when they're pushing your game to magazines and websites, making sure it's on store shelves, and I like the idea of them being "slightly behind the developer itself in knowing where the game is." The quickly become a nuisance when they want to affect code, features or want European versions (they play games in Greece?) to ship at the same time as North American versions. It's quite disheartening, to be honest.
I would just once, like a Publisher to afford the developer the time and money to take some risks and add a bit a polish, even to our licensed games, to improve the product in the long run and to make a better game for the player. I would like for the developer to build there game around Guidelines instead of trying to shoehorn them in at the last minute and not argue with us about functionality that we have seen a hundred times and is not present in their game. In return, we, QA, will communicate our issues early, efficiently and with literacy. The perfect three tiered team, working in harmony.
Oh, who am I kidding? That would probably cost too much money.
As clichés go, QA as a dream job is one of the most repeated in our industry. Joystiq and Kotaku both posted an article from the Seattle Weekly where one of the writers took a job at Volt, a local company contracted to test hardware for Microsoft and the 360. It's an interesting read, if not wildly extreme. While it does describe the conditions of a Quality Assurance department, this company looks like a Nazi concentration camp compared to my company. But the author brings up some interesting points and one quote in particular struck a chord with me:
"I think the [video game] industry in general, they want addicts," says Dr. Hilarie Cash, founder of Redmond's Internet/Computer Addiction Services. "It is to their economic benefit to have people really hooked on their games. That there happens to be a pool of addicts out there who will work for peanuts, like methadone treatment, is to their advantage," she says.
Quality Assurance always appears to be an after thought, an unfortunate cost that must be begrudgingly provided before a game can ship. It is a vicious cycle between the other departments loathing for us and their inability to provide an environment for us to succeed and prove our worth. We are constantly belittled for holding up projects by doing our job and then accept the full brunt of the blame when things don't go well. And yet, there is no active catalyst for change, there is no open discussion for how to improve what we do. So we stick with the status quo.
Reviling our ability to perform and then posting a job that only pays just above the state minimum wage only encourages more of the same. We will continue to draw from the same pool of mindless addicts instead of analytically thinking, intelligent people who could probably be enticed by a moderate increase in the starting wage. At the very least, we could be more discerning about who we choose to hire and hopefully weed out the bad apples that give us a bad name.
Unfortunately, we practically set up those that do make it through the loose screening process for failure with a training system that is antiquated and ill focused. Which brings me back to the quote; we don't want mindless addicts, we don't want drones. This defeats the purpose of QA. If one fails to see the details and becomes comfortable with the mundane, things begin to seep through the cracks. We need to stop pulling from the bottom of the barrel.
Quality Assurance can arguably be one of the most important aspects of game development. After all, there is no such thing as a B-Game.
My next video from Xplay as an intern was a review for Robotech Invasion. The game was absolutely terrible but the review was hilarious. I am the intern on the right arguing for generic game play. This was a lot of fun, if not totally embarrassing at the same time. My favorite part: Death Gurgle!!!!
Peter Molyneux is not one to be expected to take the normal route when it comes to game design. He has a varied track record when it comes to games, most notably with his Xbox game, Fable. Touted as the greatest RPG ever, it was largely a disappointment. I liked it. It had its flaws but was totally enjoyable none the less. In an attempt to not repeat the mistakes he made before, Molyneux is going out of his way to make sure he delivers this time around for the sequel, Fable 2. He has been slowly revealing what he believes are the three 'big things' that the game will bring to the collective design table. The first detail released was a pet dog. It's been done before, but the AI is supposed to be on another level compared to canine companions in the past. His latest reveal, is how the game deals with death. Apparently, he has not been happy with the way it has been handled in the past.
There is no death. Instead, your character gets beaten until he collapses. Then he (or she) gets beaten some more. And more. Continuously beaten until you get up. How do you get up? By paying for it in either experience or gold. How fast you get up, and presumably continue fighting and killing your enemies, depends on how much money you pay. Pay a lot, get up fast. Pay a little, lie on the ground for, say, sixty seconds.
So what's the consequence of not getting up fast? You get scarred. SCARRED.
As interesting as this sounds, I think he should have taken it to the extreme in the completely opposite direction. Instead, make death permanent. This is a game about the player creating a world in which they have the ability to do nearly as they please. This life long journey should be so grand that the player's character will become the greatest hero or evilest villain, one that tales are told about for generations to come. No one hears about the ones that died along the way. If the hero dies, the game is over. The player must now start over from scratch, almost as if he has been reincarnated.
I would love to see death handled like this. It would be frustrating for sure, but think of the tension and the attachment to the character the player would have. It would be quite powerful. I think Dead Rising is somewhat of an inspiration here as they handled death, at least of the story, uniquely as well. By not being in a specific place at a set time, they killed the main story line. At this point, the game gives the player a choice: continue in a bit of a free for all story or start over from the beginning, although you did get to keep your experience. The stress created by this predicament was intense, and made for some compelling game play.
To take it to the next step and eliminate the experience would be very hard core. It would probably lose a few people along the way, but those who make it to a natural death, would most definitely have created a fable for the ages.
I wanted the Nintendo press event for this year's E3 to settle in my mind, give it a couple of days to sink in. Just like it's not a good idea to drive angry, I didn't want to type angry either. But I can't shake this bad taste in my mouth. Nintendo, the company that I cut my teeth on as a gamer over twenty years ago, seems to have lost sight of what it means to keep me among the faithful. By the end of their press event, I had decided that there was no reason to ever buy a Wii.
Shigeru Miyamoto is a man that I, as well as the industry, has held in the utmost esteem. He has brought us Zelda, Mario, Donkey Kong, Starfox, Mario Kart... too many classic franchises to count. These are among the greatest games of all time. And there in lies the problem: these were games. With the Wii, Nintendo, and therefore Miyamoto (or maybe it's vice versa), has shifted their entire focus. This new focus does not include me.
The casual games market is huge. Success in this sector will guarantee massive financial gain. But for a company who has innovated at nearly every turn with hardware and software, elevated our past time to a level above most other forms of entertainment, has performed an about face on core gamers and will bring us, as their next big thing, WiiFit.
The Wii has been a huge disappointment for me personally. Zelda was not as great as I believed it could have been, there has been mini-game compilation after mini-game compilation and third party support has been lackluster at best. I had faith that Nintendo had it in them to not forget about us, the hardcore gamer, and announce some great things for the future. What I got was a plastic peripheral that looks more at place in a step aerobics class than in front of a game console. I am all for the social responsibility that comes from creating media that is largely immobile, but I get my exercise outdoors. I want to be entertained when I sit on the couch, not trained.
I still have high hopes for Metroid Prime 3 and Mario Galaxies. Unfortunately, my relationship with Nintendo is on the rocks and, frankly, I don't see us having much of a future.
It looks like the big boys had some things to get off of their chest and clear their conscious before making us forget by flashing pretty images at us from the new and improved E3.
Microsoft made the first move early last week with an open letter to the consumers concerning the ring of death phenomenon. Effectively admitting to a problem and then attempting to make amends by upping the current warranty from one to three years and reimbursing any who have been charged for repairs. I have been fortunate to have a perfectly working 360 from March of '06 but I appear to more of an exception than the rule if we are to believe the outcry that has come from the Internet. Either way, I applaud their efforts.
Then, later in the week, after some rumor rumblings, Sony came out and announced a $100 price cut for the PS3. The price of Sony's console has been a hotly debated controversy since its announcement at last year's E3. Despite their being extremely adamant about its value, it has always seemed way to high for me. I must not be the only one. Sales of the console have been lackluster at best and this may be the injection they need. I, however, will still need some games before I jump on board.
Where has been Nintendo been while the dust was settling on these two bombs? They've mostly been quiet on the damage control front except for the minor hiccup in the Nintendo machine and announced that Metroid would ship a week late.
My company, THQ, was in the news a bit last week. Firstly, we had a banner year, netting just over $1 Billion in sales. This feat was achieved through a large dependence on licensed titles, including projects that I worked on such as Cars and the combined Nickelodeon titles. This business model has definitely worked for us and made us a major contender amongst the big publishers. On the other hand, it's very calculated and, quite frankly, boring. I am, however, very excited that we are going to step up our original properties. They will mostly fall on to the 360 and PS3, but a few surprises are coming for the Wii as well.
Which leads me to mention De Blob. This looks quite promising, if not at least largely different from the norm around here at THQ. Designed by students at Utrecht, it is somewhat reminiscent of Katamari, but wholly new in it's own right. I like the direction we are heading and I hope gamers reward our bit of daring and not scare those who write checks to shy away from further original games in the future.
In an attempt to start the first, hopefully of many, traditions here on The Giant's Drink, I present Fun Fridays. In the Fall of 2004, I was an intern on Xplay. It was probably the most fun I have had while working and was rewarded with the opportunity to appear on air numerous times. I'll post YouTube clips until I run out ( I think there's about a dozen) and then Fun Fridays will have to evolve in to something else. Either way, I hope you enjoy.
This first clip was a review a Donkey Konga. I first appear at about the 2:40 mark, just behind Morgan's left shoulder. It's short, but it was a lot of fun, mostly because I got to pretend to be drunk.
Achievements are my second favorite aspect of the Xbox360 (the games are the first, duh). They are a lot of fun and add more to the experience. They make you explore a game in ways you would not have done without the them. They encourage you to give different modes of play a chance where you wouldn't have in the first place. What they don't do is entice me to buy random crap. Well they do now!!!! Well at least if I was going to play an EA game again (although skate. looks very enticing).
I don't really expect anything less from EA as they continue their reign at the top, doing what they please, and getting away with roster updates for full price. But this is quite low, even for them. I can understand the case for advertising in game if it helps flesh out a photo-realistic game environment. Still, it must be done with the utmost of care in order to not be distracting. I understand that there are only three achievements with the ad in them but it feels like they're feeling the waters. EA doesn't exactly have the best track record when it comes to Live and downloadable content.
The soft ding that accompanies an achievement has created somewhat of a Pavlovian response for me where I yearn to hear it again. Seeing an advertisement pop up when quickly shed me of the positive reinforcement that keeps me playing your game. Oh wait, I don't play your games EA. Carry on if you think that's what your buyers want.
In this month's Wired Magazine, in which Martha Stewart graces the cover with a Wii cake that oddly looks more like a 360 to me, is a brief article on a study which implies the utter failure of advertising in games. The article states that spending on such endeavors is set to increase from $56 million in 2005 to approximately $732 million in 2010. This seems insane, but publishers have been lining up to take advantage of this new revenue stream. And advertisers are quickly losing people like me, who are in the most coveted demographic, as we switch our time from channel surfing to gaming.
