Pint-Sized Playability

OK, one more brief thought on Shadow Complex while I’m on the subject: one of the most common recurring themes in game reviews for the title is that SC represents a “great value” because it includes a full-sized game in an Xbox Live release.  The thought occurs to me, however, that this might not be a good thing for developers.

The basic problem, as I see it, is that if Xbox Live simply becomes an arena for discounted AAA titles, it hurts everybody.  Developers will be forced into an arms race to produce cheaper but high-quality games, essentially lowering the starting price point for new games and squeezing their profitability.  Gamers who, like Michael Abbott, are drawn to “bursts of [streamlined] fun,” will have a harder time finding the more casual titles they treasure, because they’ll be sandwiched in between more premium titles.  And hardware manufacturers, who responded to this issue first with the Wii and Live/PSN, will find themselves in much the same predicament as they did before the current generation.

I’m hardly one to bemoan getting more for less.  But I do become concerned that the more we blur the lines between the delivery of AAA or hardcore games and casual titles, the more we actually end up hurting ourselves.  Definitely think of this more as a thought experiment if this trend were carried to an extreme, rather than a complaint about Shadow Complex, which I like quite a bit: is it possible that segregating our games by type and channel is actually beneficial?

Nothing To Apologize For

I find myself in the odd position of both wholeheartedly agreeing with Michael Pachter’s feelings and disagreeing with his walk-back of them.  I don’t often defend Pachter, whose profession I view as a modern analogue of the prehistoric entrail reader, but he was absolutely correct to voice his opinion publicly.  For those who don’t know, he ran afoul of Sony when he termed the new PSP Go a “rip-off” - a comment he based on the assumption that, if the PSP-3000 were profitable at $169/unit, the new PSP Go (which lacks some of the components) is overpriced at $250.

It’s certainly true that as a professional analyst, and not a gaming consumer, Pachter has the obligation to sever his private consumer-centric feelings from his objective view of the companies he covers.  That said, seen in context, the comments were clearly a professional opinion:

“On a recent episode of Bonus Round, Pachter matter of factly states, ‘$249 is too much. Period.’ He goes on to say that while the handheld is priced to compete with Apple’s $229 8GB iPod Touch, it doesn’t deliver the iTunes App Store or downloadable music from iTunes (as conveniently, at least, as the iPod Touch).”

Pachter is clearly voicing his opinion of how consumers will see the product and its impact on the marketplace, not his personal feelings about whether or not he would feel like purchasing it.  Since sales of the PSP Go are directly and obviously relevant to Morgan Wedbush’s customers, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Pachter would have a point of view on the subject, nor that he would express those views publicly. 

Obviously, Sony doesn’t want anybody of prominence badmouthing their new product, and so I understand their aggressive response.  But as far as I see things, Pachter’s got nothing to apologize for.

Bad Economy, Bad Games?

This Joystiq post, quoting consultant Nick Gibson, suggests that VCs are getting more hesitant about funding game companies because of worries about additional risk in more experimental games.  As a result, games are going to be more traditional and less able to push boundaries.

The argument seems like a perfectly logical one to me, but let me suggest a counterintuitive argument for pursuing riskier games, albeit smaller ones.  First off, although people are buying fewer games, there’s a few reasons that a AAA title will be more likely selected over a cheaper or more risky one: more money for promotion, more evidence that people like that style of game, and a larger market than for a niche game.  That said, you can produce 2 or 3 smaller games for the cost of a AAA title, and you only need one or two of them to be successful to make your money back.  So I could easily see that approach working.

The problem, of course is that this only works in a portfolio approach.  If a new developer comes out but is too small to be able to develop more than one title, then it’s far, far riskier - you’re more likely to end up with an unsuccessful game and bankrupt the company.  So sadly, it’s more likely that small developers with a highly focused interest are less likely to get funded.  But I would encourage bigger companies to take a look at them… maybe they can be integrated into a broader product portfolio.

Regionality & Gaming

Have you ever noticed that gaming has a lot of different companies but not a lot of truly global ones?  This probably bears some explanation.  Gamesetwatch recently had a link to an article arguing that globalization in gaming was largely illusory - that globalization is simply a code word for the imposition of Western preferences on other cultures.  I tend to disagree with that theory, simply because the ascendance of Western developers was preceded by a long period of Japanese dominance that seems to belie it.  That said, I do think there’s an important observation being made indirectly here.  

In short, gaming has been characterized by eras of imitation, where one region’s preferences have tended to dictate the general style of games for a majority of the world.  This started with Nintendo in the 80s and has shifted westward, but in general has tended to have one of two effects on “foreign” developers - either they imitate the trend (often slavishly) or they fight to differentiate themselves and remain largely marginal players in the industry for some time.

My point is that even now, though, there are very few companies that sell globally but design their products regionally… at least, beyond some basic localization around languages and naming conventions.  Look at the gaming titans of today, Activision and EA: although they certainly do sell their games worldwide, the number of titles that are uniquely tailored to specific markets is highly limited.  For example, they have few titles targeted towards the eclectic Japanese handheld markets of today.  Rather, the model is to export homegrown titles and hope they find an audience overseas.  Similarly, in the past, the JRPG was the standard RPG model for years.  Clearly, based on the rise of Fallout-style or Dungeons-and-Dragons role-playing games, there was a substantial market for different types of titles, and they were often seen on the PC.  Yet until the locus of development momentum shifted to the Western developers, they didn’t see a huge number of console releases relative to the Final Fantasy style.

I have to wonder if there’s an opportunity here for game companies to become more localized in some markets and thus sell more games to more people.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies, Violence Edition

Insult Swordfighting notes that Sega is one of the few publishers willing to take a risk on violent, edgy material for the Wii - which isn’t selling very well.  Unfortunately, I don’t think much of Sega’s strategy at this point, because the basic rationale underlying it isn’t holding up at this point… a function of timing as much as fundamentals.

Point 1: The Wii has sold a lot of consoles.  This is indubitably true, but often stated with the same misguided authority as some CPG marketing executive noting that China has a lot of people, and if you could each sell just one of them a single Coke, you’d be a billionaire!  This sort of reductionist nonsense manages to elide the risks, challenges, and costs of such a venture with the precision of a back-of-the-envelope calculation made on a Chili’s tablecloth at lunch.  As Nintendo has so often pointed out, they’ve expanded the gaming pie; but the pie is clearly no longer the same as it once was.  The market for outre, artistically violent conceptual shooters isn’t much larger than it ever was, and that’s what Sega is targeting - not some nebulous conception of “gamers.”

Point 2: Substitution is no longer the challenge it once was.  Back when the consoles first started emerging, I was rooting hard for the Wii to emerge as a dominant platform - and it did.  Unfortunately, my vision of the Wii as a dominant platform was different from the reality; I had imagined a single monolith producing hardcore games and Wii Fits with equal savoir faire.  What I got was a highly-targeted console with little, if any, interest in scratching the hardcore itch with regularity.  The difference here is that I, like many gamers, adjusted.  We bought a 360 (and potentially a PS3) as well, many of us years ago.  As a result, there’s no real need for developers to move through the Wii to reach a desired audience that is almost always on multiple consoles.  And although I might consider taking a chance on a new Wii game that I thought was in my demographic, it’s hard enough to follow 3-6 consoles that it’s equally likely that it will fall through the cracks.  Especially given the plethora of multiplatform alternatives.

So while I agree that it’s nice to see someone taking a chance, I am less optimistic about its chances for success.  It seems to me like Capcom is pursuing an early-generation strategy in a mid-generation timeframe.

If it sounds too good to be true?

A new company called “OnLive” has announced a service which will let you run high-end, 720p PC games at 60 FPS on any computer with a decent internet connection and web browser.  You could also buy a (theoretically) cheap “Micro-console” device from the company that would hook into your TV via HDMI that would also enable you to play all of these games in HD at 60FPS.

Assuming that the price for this service is reasonable, such a service would likely radically alter the gaming industry in a very short period of time.  High-end gaming PCs would be an absurd investment if even your $100 netbook could play the same games at ridiculously good graphical settings.  Powerful and pricey new consoles would look noisy and hot compared to a cheap, sleek, and quiet PSP-sized device that could play better looking games anyway.  Not only that, your device would never need to be upgraded to support the newest generation of games… your games would just keep looking better and better over time whether you’re using an old computer or an old “micro-console”.  All you’re responsible for paying for once you have a computer/microconsole is your internet connection and the subscription fee (and, of course, for the games, which would also be “rentable” since the problem of piracy goes out the window).

Read the rest of this entry »

DLC Shenanigans?

Resident Evil 5 has now been released, but as we’ve found out over the past few days there is already DLC in the works that will enable a “Versus Mode”, which gives non-cooperative ways to play the game multiplayer.  Unfortunately, unlike the free updates for Left 4 Dead and other Valve games, this DLC will cost $5.

While $5 is not the end of the world, this strikes me as a really poor idea, not just because it seems like a blatant attempt to quickly squeeze a bit more money out of customers for features that should’ve potentially been included with the game, but also because it strikes me as the kind of thing that will substantially reduce the number of people that can play it in this mode, thus possibly making the experience even worse for all of those who actually do purchase it (or at least reducing its longevity and therefore it’s long-term potential).

Separating out an entire multiplayer feature for DLC is much different than just selling new maps for a game.  At least if the game ships with the feature I’ll know that I’ll always be able to play with anyone else who bought the game, whether or not they bought the new maps.  What Capcom seems to be doing with RE5 seems more akin to if Bungie had decided to charge separately just to play Halo 3 multiplayer, and I think that probably would’ve been a pretty quick way to kill the Halo 3 community.  Granted, the demand for competitive RE5 modes is probably less than Halo 3’s, but that shouldn’t really matter.

Capcom may want to think clearly about their DLC strategy going forward.  There are certainly some people, many who have no problems paying for all kinds of DLC content, that are unhappy with the way they are treating their fans with their latest games.

Whodda Thunk?

I’m sure this is blowing the top business minds everywhere, but apparently giving people a free basically unlimited sample of something and then selling that something at a substantial discount will dramatically increase its use and sales.

I know, I know… Crazy, right?  But that’s the lesson we learn from the news that Epic’s Unreal Tournament 3 saw a 2000% increase in simultaneous players after allowing people to take it for a spin for free for a full weekend and discounting the game 40% off of its normal price on Steam.

Apparently, this result was so shocking that brilliant minds at Epic determined that they would extend the sale and do another free weekend.  Maybe it will be so successful that Epic will just feel compelled to permanently keep the game on “sale” and make every weekend a free one!

I guess Epic can’t take all the credit for this idea though… after all, this comes after Left 4 Dead sales increased 3000%, beating out even its own launch sales, after Valve discounted it 50% for a weekend.

It really is shocking… heavily discount a popular and well-reviewed game and its sales increase dramatically.  I never would’ve guessed.

Now, snark aside… I’m just glad that someone has finally realized that they can still have sales on digital items.  It seems that Microsoft is sort of getting the hint as well as they’re actually having weekly sales as well… though it doesn’t seem like it’s with things that are that interesting yet.  Why they don’t start discounting and having sales on some of their older catalog is beyond me, and the number one thing I am not looking forward to as we approach a discless gaming world.

Agreed, Mr. Nelson

Fast Company’s methodology is highly confusing, inasmuch as to the magazine, “innovative company” appears to be synonymous with “successful company.”  Aside from the obvious confirmation bias problems inherent in this type of list (the writer appears to have reverse-engineered it from earnings reports), it takes as an unstated yet required assumption that successful products inherently stem from innovative companies.

Nintendo has a reasonable chance of appearing on the list due to the Wii and related products, but you need more than a single successful game to start calling a given company innovative as a whole.  Not to mention, innovative companies may not be the same as profitable ones.

MS Store Redux

“Microsoft has a problem: Everyone in the world uses its products, but few of us appreciate them.”

Farhad Manjoo weighs in favorably, if unpersuasively, on the Microsoft store concept which I discussed earlier.  Manjoo’s main thesis appears to be a distillation of the above - that Microsoft needs retail to help humanize its products in the same way that Apple’s store provides an introduction to their corporate image.  Unfortunately, he ends up underlining rather than undermining what he cites as critics’ main objection to the idea, which is that, like the Zune, a Microsoft Store is a pale copy of the Apple reality.

Read the rest of this entry »