The Video Game Critic

I think one thing people need to understand is how people within the industry seem to think. I've been to the last couple of Game Developer's Conferences, and having been around some of these folks, it is clear there is a "wall" between what stirs the pot for the game developer people and what the general public actually cares about.

I kept noticing that the overarching theme was "look at the cool stuff we can do," as opposed to "let's talk about the kind of things people want in games." These are, in some cases, brilliant people. They like flexing their intellectual muscle, and that colors what they do. I think that makes them lose their focus: the end user, as they devise lots of cool features that many of us never/seldom use (but is impressive to them).

Take the Xbox 360's ability to rip tunes from your CD to your harddrive, and use a custom soundtrack in some games. Pretty cool, right? Well, I have now just discovered this feature, over a year after owning the system. And the reason why I discovered it? The licensed tracks in Forza 2 and MLB 2k7 were so mediocre, I was scrambling to find other stuff to listen to!

The Xbox 360 seems replete with features like this: things that are sorta cool but I never use. Take the movie download service. Hmm, a bunch of flicks that are priced pretty high and you don't even own them really? No thanks. What about connecting my Xbox to my PC? Don't care. I really, really, don't care about having a media "hub." I LIKE owning individual components. It allows me to mix and choose what I like for each individual thing, as opposed to being forced to accept everything in one package. It's why component stereo systems are better than bookshelf models.

-Rob

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]Mozart, I understand what you are saying about Microsoft...I really do.[/QUOTE]

I'd like to believe that, JLH, but I just don't, for reasons I am getting into below.

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]Its just that they haven't done a single thing to correct their "image problems".[/QUOTE]

They spent a lot of money attempting to develop games that were similarly popular on Nintendo consoles, particularly Viva Pinata.  Now obviously that ploy didn't work, so they are attempting just now to take a deeper page out of Nintendo's book.

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]You talk about the casual gaming market like Nintendo just recently discovered it...Sony has owned it since the PS1.  The PS1 and PS2 were THE systems for casual gamers.[/QUOTE]

I thought I made it clear that this isn't just about casual gamers.  I am referring to the non-gaming market that is EXPANDING into the casual and family-friendly gaming market through Nintendo's efforts.  Now obviously a casual gaming and family-friendly gaming market existed before this, but it was never the focus of the entire industry in the post-32-bit era.  The emphasis has been on bigger, better, more complex, even in those games we just mentioned.  Nintendo has basically realized that they can't compete in that arena for marketshare, and so they tried to change up the cards a bit.  So far, it's worked for them.

Again, this is about a new market -- one that is now expanding the ranks of two markets Nintendo had some rapport with.

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]They had software for everybody.  If you wanted Crash, Spyro, Disney, Barbie, Ratchet, Jak or Kratos it was on those systems.  It had every genre covered and everyone from hardcore to casual gamer were covered.[/QUOTE]

Growing the casual gaming market from a group of people traditionally uninterested in games, and growing it from the group of people who were once gamers but lost interest as complexity of games expanded, was not what Sony was doing.

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]I will agree with you that Nintendo has found new gamers like females and older people, but those people aren't gonna buy a 360...it costs too much money for a mainstream gamer.  Not too mention that there are almost zero titles that they might be interested in.  The would need to make serious changes to attract those new folks that Nintendo has lured in.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter if you and I think they will or will not buy the 360.  The issue is that Microsoft has seen and admired Nintendo's marketing strategy, which includes price scheme, interfaces, and gaming content.  They want to take a page out of their book.  Nobody said they were there yet.  If the announcement is indication of anything, it's that they just started.

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]You say that Microsoft wants people to have the choice of epic games as well as pick up and play and it isn't happening.[/QUOTE]

They JUST STARTED going in this direction.  That press release claimed absolutely no credit for anything related to this.  Instead, it praised Nintendo openly, and then stated that Microsoft will now be taking a different approach.  Seriously, it's not that hard to understand what they were saying.  I don't think they claimed, so far at least, that they had come anywhere near accomplishing this yet.

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]While it may not have been  there intention to only own a "niche market" it is what they are doing at the moment.  Its just that they are finally starting to realize it now.  They don't help themselves very much though.  They take a great license like Shadowrun, which could have been a great action RPG...and they turned it into an online only FPS.  It wouldn't have won them tons of new customers, but it would have offered people something different. [/QUOTE]

That is precisely what I said, in intricate detail.  They were attacking the portion of the market that was perceived to be growing in the last decade, because they saw that as the biggest route for market proliferation.  That plan is changing now, for obvious reasons.

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]When I think about the biggest games for the 360 coming out in the next year and half, not a single title is one I would consider casual.  They are all epic, shooters, RPGs and "mature" action games.  GTAIV, Halo 3, Mass Effect, Too Human are all gonna be great games...but mainstream people will be more than happy to buy Super Smash Bros, Super Mario Galaxy, Wii Music, Boogie, EA Playground, My Sims...[/QUOTE]

Again, they just made this announcement that their intention is to start down this path.  Don't expect them to throw away high-profile games they and third parties have been working hard on for years.  But I think we can expect Microsoft to start planning an approach (assuming they haven't been planning for months after the proven success of the Wii) to attack Nintendo's market directly.

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]Microsoft can keep pouring resources into gaming and all other facets to make the 360 the huge focus of media and entertainment...but they are just going to spread themselves thin.  The masses still don't care about these huge all in one entertainment machines.  Technophiles and people with lots of cash do.  Your average joe would much rather just play some games...and not worry about streaming audio from an MP3 player to a 360 and then send the song to his buddy, who takes it and puts it on his computer to make a video and on and on and on... Sure its cool, but I don't think its gonna win Microsoft anymore fans or customers.[/QUOTE]

This is just more evidence that you didn't understand what I was saying.  I think it's obvious that Microsoft realizes that they can't just go to market with a media hub.  There isn't a big market for it yet.  But Microsoft also realizes, as they told Apple's CEO once upon a time, that you don't have to be the best -- you just have to be first.  And they believe (as does Sony) that media hubs are coming as a driving market force once the market for HD grows in the entertainment arena.  They have to be out there, so to speak, even if at first it isn't profitable or successful.  The hope is that they will become known for this even in a smaller way so that by the time it becomes a household word, they will have the most cost-effect product with the most initially available content.

Microsoft is one of the richest corporations in the world.  But it's been due to their iron curtain platform and their office tools, and not much of anything else.  They know that won't last forever -- and they are thus trying to invest in the future through a variety of efforts, not just video gaming and media hubs, that cost them major amounts of money and produce no profit even after half a decade.  They do this because they see it as an investment in the future.  And fortunately or unfortunately, part of being ready for the future is pushing new ideas in the forecast in the here and now.

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]Like I said before, they have an uphill battle.  One that I don't think they will come close to climbing before the end of the 360's life cycle.[/QUOTE]

I have no idea whether they will succeed, and wasn't commenting on that.  My comment was to the obvious -- they see they have no choice but to go in this direction if they want to meet goals other than just gamer's market domination.  I've been saying this for a LONG time -- Microsoft isn't just in this market for gaming.  They are in it for more expansive media provisioning.  They've been quickly turning their console and its hyped online portal into a downloadable content provider for HDTV entertainment purposes.  They are trying to make gaming just one of the many functions of their platform.  But they will need market proliferation of that platform to really sell the idea profitably to the public.

The early perception when Sony and Microsoft started moving in this media hub direction was that the dedicating gamers' market is one of the best early adopters of new technology.  That was the assumption.  It's not an inaccurate one either.  But I think what has happened is that Microsoft realizes that they'll need more than a solid but capped market of early adopters.  They need proliferation.  That's why they see what Nintendo is doing as a threat, even though Nintendo has no interest in becoming a media entertainment center provider.

There's a reason why Nintendo, when they entered into this new business plan almost five years ago, called their direction "disruptive marketing".  I am familiar enough with the term in the software market to know what it means -- the software industry as a whole has itself been affected by so-called service-oriented architectures of late, and it has been a major disruptive force in that market as a whole.  So much so that Microsoft has entered the arena along with other big players to make sure they can be a standards-bearer for this platform-neutral approach to software development.  Microsoft may not be great innovators, but they know how to take ideas, develop them to a potential, and run with them.  In this case, Microsoft has finally decided they can't play the game the way they have so far and still win in the market, so they are going in a different direction.  I don't know what will come of it, but I don't think they are joking about their resolve to do exactly that.

[QUOTE=andrew]And all this time I thought hardcore-gamers were people who played games practically non-stop. According to him, hardcore means M rated game playing. Hardcore gamers are the ones who play Pac-Man or river-raid non-stop to gain the high score. [/QUOTE]


thats what hardcore gaming USED to be, but it changed around 1995 with the original playstation. the HC gamers that enjoyed 2D shooters, platformers, fighters, etc, got systematically squeezed out of the market. and now that the shoe is on the other foot i get to quietly laugh at their misfortune.

I understood what you said before...

Yes its is crazy that Microsoft has said this...(they are practically admitting defeat). 

However, I was merely painting the picture of what Microsoft is currently.  They are a company that caters to the harcore.  My thought process being that its going to be very hard for them to make these changes. 

Yes, going after the non-gamer market will help them, but Nintendo has a firm grasp on that market for the moment.  I also don't think copying Nintendo is the way to go.  Microsoft needs some original ideas.  The orginal model was to take a PC and PS2 and mash them together...I'm not quite sure that taking a Wii + Nintendo business plan + PC = profit. 

Nintendo has something that Microsoft doesn't have...a family friendly image and the know how to appeal to those families with great quirky games.  Microsoft has to do more than come up with a more powerful Wii to win over the non-gamer market.

I also understand Nintendo's "disruptive technology" approach.  I've read/watched practically every speech Reggie Fils Aime delievered prior to the launch of the Wii and I have a firm grasp of the concept.  Microsoft will not be disrupting anything if they copy Nintendo...they will merely be copying Nintendo...nothing more, nothing less.

If Microsoft does make a huge push towards this they are going to do something that Nintendo has never done...alienate the people that worship the system.  I don't believe that xbox fans who have owned the system from the beginning are gonna be too happy when the machine becomes a family oreinted box.

I'm not trying to argue with you...just trying to play devil's advocate.  Microsoft very well could pull this all off.  They could create something crazy and change the way we play games and lure in tons of non-traditional gamers.  Its not all that often that you see a videogame company openly say they are going to copy their competition.  It shows that Microsoft is at least thinking about their future. 

Personaly, I find it hard to repect MS for anything they have done as a videogame company, and I find it somewhat amazing that they even have 'fans'.

MS has stated that their sole reason to get into gaming in the first place was a defense action against Sony eventually cracking into the PC market. Wow. That is inspiring. And for some reason I have never gotten excited about Xbox or 360.

MS recognized that they would need some exclusive games to help their system. So they go out and buy up whole studios for that purpose. And look how much RARE and others have helped them. Again, this is impressive.

They still haven't made any money in their game division, they are subsidized by their PC software. This is not a crime, but why support a company that can only keep itself from flatlining in gaming after 7 years by huge finacial transfusions?

I read Mozart's link on Bill Gate's bold new game vision, and you just have to laugh. Go ahead and implement your visual recognition Bill, that won't even amount to a Virtual Boy. Who knew that instead of swinging my cheap little Wimote I could bring my 42" Louisville Slugger in and have a go. LOL, I better sew a wrist strap on ahead of time. NOW we can have realtime sword movement, as well! I'll even give him a game idea, for nothing. Props needed incluse a .45 Magnum and a bottle of Vodka, It's Russian Roulette over XBOX Live! The ultimate in Videogame Realism, with Fully Realized Gore, and Online Tournaments Supported! Are you MATURE enough for the most edgy and dangerous game ever invented?!? Well, are you, punk?!

As far as Sony goes, to me they have only represented what Cliffy B's bro. is complaining about in the firstplace. A bunch of causual gamers who don't know what they are buying, so they buy the 'cool' brand and a handful of junk or uninspired software before they tire of it.

Not to say Sony and MS haven't brought about some good games and ideas and advance the industry, but come on, neither of the are the Holy Grail of gaming. If Nintendo was so acidic to good gaming, people would not fall over themselves trying to copy them. They are not for everyone, but thay clearly are more creative, more inovative, more likely to take artistic (if not finacial) risks, and are much, much better at business then their competitors. At least they have a creative vision that goes beyond selling high def T.V.'s and media formats. Like it or not, they are much truer to gaming than anyone else out there.

I kind of miss the old SEGA. I was never a big fan, but at least you knew a SEGA game when you saw one. They have (or had) their own fingerprint and style, and it did not look and play like the same old crap.

[QUOTE=Steerforth]

I kind of miss the old SEGA. I was never a big fan, but at least you knew a SEGA game when you saw one. They have (or had) their own fingerprint and style, and it did not look and play like the same old crap.


[/QUOTE]

Yes.  I miss the way Sega games felt.  You could practically feel the arcade in them.  That's why much of their current stuff is terrible.  No one would play Shadow the Hedgehog in the arcade.