I don't know what the best albums of 2008 are - that's hard to say without hearing everything. However, here are some great albums I think got a bit overlooked this year.
Punk(ish) and Metal(ish) Albums
Gaslight Anthem – The 59- Sound
Bruce Springsteen and punk make for a remarkably potent mix – one of my favorites all year.
Dance Gavin Dance – Downtown Battle Mountain
This is a ridiculous screamo album – but it’s also pretty irresistible.
Dillinger Four – CIVIL WAR
It only took seven years for a follow up but this album was totally worth the wait.
The Loved Ones – Build and Burn
An honest blue-collar punk album that just delivers.
Baroness – Red Album
It was a strong year in metal and I think this release is a contender.
Zozobra – Bird of Prey
Relentless and punishing, Zozobra steps up its efforts in a big way.
Krallice – Krallice
Something this intense shouldn’t be so constantly listenable.
Veil of Maya – The Common Man’s Collapse
One of my favorite bands last year continues its excellent streak.
Misery Signals – Controller
Ditto for this great band and release.
Rock(ish) Albums
1990s – Cold and Kind
Listen to “The Wool and the Lamb” and tell me that this isn’t a great record.
The Acorn – Glory Hope Mountain
This Ottawa band didn’t get any love, but they deserve it – this is an album album
American Princes – Other People
A solid and toe-tapping record from a consistently good American band
Born Ruffians – Red, Yellow and Blue
The Ruffian’s sound is jagged, but spiked with great melodies.
The Bound Stems – The Family Afloat
Everything is falling apart, but sounds so together on this album.
The Cansecos – Juices!
The Cansecos have a knack for delicious keyboard-flavored soul.
Dennis Wilson – Pacific Ocean Blue
Dennis proves that there was another talented Wilson in the Beach Boys.
The Depreciation Guild – In Her Gentle Jaws
Chiptune meets Slowdive in a gloriously great mashup.
The Dodos – The Visitor
This album just oozes the warmth and wandering of summer.
Evangelicals – The Evening Descends
A bent testament to widescreen cinema and horror-movie storytelling.
Foals – Antidotes
Battles meets British Rock in a furious blaze of songs.
French Kicks – Swimming
They dirty up their minimalist rock with epic results.
Headlights – Some Racing, Some Stopping
Every song on this compact pop album is superb.
The Helio Sequence – Keep your Eyes Ahead
Despite some stumbles this record is full of mind-blowing moments.
Hilotrons – Happymatic
Wobbly-legged melodies with a bright falsetto for a singer.
Mae Shi – Hillyh
They lost their lead singer and they persevered – good thing too.
Okkervil River – The Stand Ins
The last song on this album gives me goosebumps every time.
Passion Pit – Chunk of Change EP
This was the singer’s engagement gift to his wife – great gift!
Sun Kill Moon – April
Who needs the Red House Painters? Long live Sun Kil Moon
Two Hours Traffic – Little Jabs
The light on east coast can-rock hasn’t gone out yet.
The War on Drugs – Wagonwheel Blues
Music that sounds better in feedback – great album.
Wilderness – (K)now(W)here
They are consistently awesome in what they do.
Wye Oak – If Children
Both beautiful and anarchic, this is a great almost post-rock record.
Electronic-ish Albums
Autechre – Quaristice
Autectrhe always find a way to challenge and delight.
Azeda Booth – In Flesh Tomes
I would say that this was the best release from Calgary this year.
Belong – Colourless Record
Brief, elegiac and haunting drone(ish) record.
Clark – Turning Dragon
A chaotic, complex listen – just trying sourcing the samples
HEALTH/DISCO
A new movement in aggressive electro was born here.
Holy Fuck – LP
I saw them live this year – they can turn any source into something to dance to.
Kleerup – s/t
Not a lot of people can do heartsick with electronics – at least not this well.
Lykke Li – Youth Novels
Lykke Li is one of the reasons the Kleerup release is so good.
Mahjongg – Kontpab
Not quite rock, not quite electronic. All awesome.
Sian Alice Group – 59:59
Ditto.
Rap(ish) Albums
Black Spade – To Serve with Love
Such an effortlessly solid album – I highly recommend
D-Sisive – The Book
His story is heartbreaking, his return is incredible.
Del the Funky Homosapien – Eleventh Hour
Del does his thing and it’s crazy, but a fun listen.
eMC – The Show
This supergroup delivers one of the best rap releases of the year.
Invincible – Shapeshifters
Great female emcee with a decidedly political bent.
Jake One – White Van Music
This is an awesome mixtape with a great variety of guests.
Jean Grae – Jeanius
Some of the best wordplay I’ve heard all year.
Madlib – King of the Wigflip
Madlib has a way of creating the most oddly memorable beats.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
Everybody is not an Expert: Leave PR to the Pros
As communications enters a variety of new mediums enabled by technology, we must continue to assert our expertise and ensure that what is communicated through these channels is managed, planned and developed by PR pros. Although traditional forms of communications continue to decline, there are plenty of opportunities rising up through the Internet’s ability to connect people quickly. Whether that’s simply making sure your organization is found online (Search Engine Optimization) or diving into the world of real-time communications (Twitter), it’s got to be managed by the specialists.
Particularly when it comes to communications mediums that are enabled by the newest of technology, there’s an ongoing debate about whose responsibility it is to dictate how to work within those mediums. Social technology with its empowering aspect brings a certain pressure on communications experts – that because as Shel Holtz points out – the argument is that social media is so widespread that it becomes the work of everyone. Similarly, communications via technology tools such as Content Management Systems, or other technology-enabled tools like Video Feeds or Podcasts come with a certain pressure from the technology experts who control them, whether that’s your internal Information Technology Specialist or an outside contractor.
Fundamentally though, what gets communicated should remain under the direct control of the PR pro; because while the technology behind the mediums might change, from newspaper to real-time chat, the strategy and the execution of communications stays the same. You might be talking through a different channel, but how you talk and persuade is static.
Why isn’t everyone an expert?
While everybody can use social media, that doesn’t mean everybody is an expert. Holtz points out that everybody can make eggs, but that doesn’t qualify them to be a chef at a high end restaurant. Additionally, letting technicians control the messaging is like letting your printer control the content of your print publications – as Holtz notes, the technician’s job is to make sure it looks the way it’s supposed to, and the PR pros job is to determine the content.
In a recent post by Kristy Scott at adliterate, she furthers the idea by arguing that just because everyone has feedback, doesn’t mean it’s valuable. Ideas can’t come from anywhere, and they shouldn’t. For the sake of focused and coherent communications, it’s best if the messages come from the people whose job is to craft them every day.
From my own personal experience working with a large marketing group and a larger group of technology experts above them, the most effective campaigns were the ones where public relations and marketing used the source information they received from the technology professionals and crafted it the best way they could to elicit the desired response from the key audience.
When this hand-off wasn’t so clean and feedback continued to be received from all parties, the results were often muddled, compromise-ridden messes – neither effective in communicating the right technical details nor emotionally resonant enough to reach people effectively. Sometimes a good communications idea can come out of a non-traditional source, but I would agree with Scott that the majority of time, the best communications are those crafted by the people whose career depends on them.
The key is to understand that a PR pro’s job is not limited to a few simple activities. To say that specializing in social media or any other technology-enabled forum (SEO or Online Community Management) is the role of people outside of PR is looking at things with too narrow a focus; in my opinion, PR as a skill set is not a concrete checklist, but a larger set of meta-skills. Whether it’s social media, investor relations, community management or technology PR - these are areas where PR pros can and should be responsible.
The true responsibilities of a good communicator are wide-spanning; that means we as communications experts need to learn and become experienced with these tools so that they become a part of our broad range of communications skills. When and if new mediums open up where communications can be established, it is the responsibility of the PR pro to manage and (directly or indirectly as often is the case in social media) guide them – because public relations is about managing relationships no matter where or how they take place.
Particularly when it comes to communications mediums that are enabled by the newest of technology, there’s an ongoing debate about whose responsibility it is to dictate how to work within those mediums. Social technology with its empowering aspect brings a certain pressure on communications experts – that because as Shel Holtz points out – the argument is that social media is so widespread that it becomes the work of everyone. Similarly, communications via technology tools such as Content Management Systems, or other technology-enabled tools like Video Feeds or Podcasts come with a certain pressure from the technology experts who control them, whether that’s your internal Information Technology Specialist or an outside contractor.
Fundamentally though, what gets communicated should remain under the direct control of the PR pro; because while the technology behind the mediums might change, from newspaper to real-time chat, the strategy and the execution of communications stays the same. You might be talking through a different channel, but how you talk and persuade is static.
Why isn’t everyone an expert?
While everybody can use social media, that doesn’t mean everybody is an expert. Holtz points out that everybody can make eggs, but that doesn’t qualify them to be a chef at a high end restaurant. Additionally, letting technicians control the messaging is like letting your printer control the content of your print publications – as Holtz notes, the technician’s job is to make sure it looks the way it’s supposed to, and the PR pros job is to determine the content.
In a recent post by Kristy Scott at adliterate, she furthers the idea by arguing that just because everyone has feedback, doesn’t mean it’s valuable. Ideas can’t come from anywhere, and they shouldn’t. For the sake of focused and coherent communications, it’s best if the messages come from the people whose job is to craft them every day.
From my own personal experience working with a large marketing group and a larger group of technology experts above them, the most effective campaigns were the ones where public relations and marketing used the source information they received from the technology professionals and crafted it the best way they could to elicit the desired response from the key audience.
When this hand-off wasn’t so clean and feedback continued to be received from all parties, the results were often muddled, compromise-ridden messes – neither effective in communicating the right technical details nor emotionally resonant enough to reach people effectively. Sometimes a good communications idea can come out of a non-traditional source, but I would agree with Scott that the majority of time, the best communications are those crafted by the people whose career depends on them.
The key is to understand that a PR pro’s job is not limited to a few simple activities. To say that specializing in social media or any other technology-enabled forum (SEO or Online Community Management) is the role of people outside of PR is looking at things with too narrow a focus; in my opinion, PR as a skill set is not a concrete checklist, but a larger set of meta-skills. Whether it’s social media, investor relations, community management or technology PR - these are areas where PR pros can and should be responsible.
The true responsibilities of a good communicator are wide-spanning; that means we as communications experts need to learn and become experienced with these tools so that they become a part of our broad range of communications skills. When and if new mediums open up where communications can be established, it is the responsibility of the PR pro to manage and (directly or indirectly as often is the case in social media) guide them – because public relations is about managing relationships no matter where or how they take place.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
3 Reasons Why Far Cry 2 Sucks - The Trouble with Realism
So, it’s no surprise that the game didn’t sell the way Ubisoft projected – and despite a positive outlook from the company – I don’t think it will end up being a major success.
Despite spectacular environments, excellent persistent graphics (almost no loading) and a game that paints a realistic portrait of war-torn
The trouble with realism in games is simple: games are not real. They might be built on physics systems that operate like the real world, they might include real weapons, real environments and advanced AI – but in the end, they are not real – they are games.
So why doesn’t realism work? I’ve got three reasons:
Immersive versus Enjoyable
While many games strive for immersion, whether through environments (GTA 4) or narrative (Portal), the ultimate question that decides if players come back to a game constantly happens to be: is it enjoyable?
The immersion tactics of GTA 4 serve the gameplay – they are not the sole focus of it. All the sights and sounds of
Same goes for Portal with its strong sense of narrative that draws you in through a subtlety delivered story. The game makes you feel like you are part of the environment, but ultimately, its window-dressing to the gameplay mechanics.
Certainly, these games are successful at using immersion to portray reality – but the key is that the reality is the game’s own. It’s not real-world logic that the games are holding players to, but the internal logic of the game itself. The “reality” of the game works in harmony to how the game is played, further enhancing a player’s experience.
Far Cry 2 stumbles because the game’s dedication to creating a “real” environment goes against the internal logic of the game. To name a few, here are some of the “realistic” things the game does to create immersion:
- Weapons can jam and break over time
- Warring militias will attack you frequently
- Outposts that you’ve cleared will have people in them again
- Traveling to different places can take a long time
All of these things adhere to the logic of the real world. If you were to attack an outpost, it’s likely that if you came back later there could be people in it – and they wouldn’t be friendly. Same goes for weapons – they can break and jam.
The problem is, these mechanics don’t jive with the logic of the gameplay. Consider the premise of Far Cry 2 – you are a solider whose mission is to kill the Jackal. To accomplish your mission you must:
- Kills hundreds of men who stand in your way over various missions
- Trek endless miles either in a jeep, boat or by foot across the African Savannah
- Negotiate between two dangerous militias
- Find a way to constantly battle malaria during the whole affair
No matter what kind of elements that are added to make it realistic, such as giving the player malaria attacks, the fact is – the goal of the game could not be realistically achieved by one person in real life.
That said, these real-world elements make playing Far Cry 2 often excruciatingly frustrating. The game wants you to kill dozens of men to complete a mission (unrealistic), but then it hinders you by making your weapon jam (reality), and making you travel a long distance (reality) through countless hostile, respawning outposts (reality).
Games as escape from reality
So what could Far Cry 2 have done differently? That’s simple, remove weapons jamming and make it easier to teleport to the start of mission objectives. Is this realistic in the real world? No, it isn’t. But at the same time, it’s not unrealistic to the logic of Far Cry 2, which asks you to complete missions using a lot of weapons and traveling to lots of different locations.
The key is that games are an escape from reality – so while they might reflect elements of reality – they should not operate exactly like reality. The point of the game is to challenge and empower a player to do something they couldn’t do in real life. The trouble with Far Cry 2 is that it attempts to give you “real-life” challenges in a game that couldn’t possibly be replicated in real life. The result is that the realistic elements frustrate and limit a players’ enjoyment of the main mechanic of the game – planning and completing objectives using a variety of weapons, tactics and vehicles.
The sore thumb theory
As some reviews attest, another problem with trying to make a game reflect the real world is that when the game to do this with some component, it sticks out like a sore thumb.
With Far Cry 2, all of these pieces attempt to create a vivid picture of a real war-torn African landscape – except the day and night cycle happens faster than in real life, enemies don’t act like humans and sometimes when they are shooting at you, they are not even facing you.
The trouble with realism is that it demands complete loyalty. You can’t make some elements realistic and then shirk other things because they just stand out even more, doubly reversing the immersion you’ve attempted to create. Sure, my weapon jams just like a real gun, but why do the guards not see me when I’m standing right next to them? Why does it take five shots to knock down an enemy? The problem is, you can’t go for reality half-way because every element that’s not realistic takes game players out of the game, and gets them asking these types of questions.
The trouble with realism is that it’s not always fun – especially when it doesn’t serve the gameplay. Just look at the equally mixed-reviews of Mirror’s Edge, which attempts to portray parkour in a realistic way, but then makes design decisions that conflict with the internal logic of the gameplay.
With Far Cry 2, it suffers from the same problem – the balance between creating an immersible reality and delivering an enjoyable game experience is offset for the former.
So when you ask, is this game realistic: you can say “mostly, yes” but when you ask is this game fun:
I have to say “mostly, no.”
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Calgary Flea Markets
The Rule of Flea Markets
If there's one rule I go by in judging a flea/farmer's market value, it's how many uni-brow-sporting Ukrainians can be found there. The general guideline is, the more Ukrainians the better the flea market. The logic for this is simple: the spirit of the flea market is the antithesis of formality. A flea market is like a big family gathering, where everybody brings something to the table - it's this simple spirit of the community that makes them unique to a grocery store or mall.
Calgary Flea Markets
Crossroads Market
Crossroads market started in NE Calgary, but it has truly found its home at the crux of Inglewood and Ogden. Based on my rule, this is the quintessential Calgary flea market - it's filled with Ukrainians who sell a variety of products including cheese, farm eggs, cabbage rolls, ham hocks and honey - not to mention, the retail section where you can purchase handmade clothes, wax candles, salvaged antiques, ancient electronics and giant plaster wizards. To be honest, Crossroads is a total mess - but that's what makes it enthralling - the place is totally human and it hums with the creative energy of people coming together to share their work and interests. The farmer's market is the best Calgary has to offer, the restaurants inside are totally family-run and the retail section is an attic-digger's dream of new and used items.
Calgary Flea Market
The first thing you'll notice about the Calgary Flea Market (located on Currie Barracks in SW Calgary), is a distinct lack of Ukrainians - never a good sign. My experience with the Calgary Flea Market is this: it feels like a flea market for people who don't like flea markets. It's way too clean, well-lit and while the stores do offer handmade crafts or food, it's not in any way similar to the kinds of things you'll find at Crossroads. The vendors do offer some great products, but they are of the commercial variety, and honestly, fairly expensive. At the Calgary Flea Market you can get gourmet chicken sausage from a company that has it's own website. Same goes for any of the retail products - everything is of the high-end variety - and considering the clientele are coming from Lakeview and Mount Royal - that's fine. Just don't expect the same kind of family-knit ambiance that glows in Crossroads.
Hillhurst-Sunnyside Farmer's Market
While smaller in scale than the prominent flea markets in Calgary, the Hillhurts-Sunnyside Farmer's Market (located at the Hillhurst community center) is filled with a wonderful variety of homemade products or antique items. The offerings are more focused on crafts than food, but the vendors are no less enthusiastic to talk to people about their handicrafts. The only real drawback (other than smaller size and less
Ukrainians) is that it's not open for very long (Wednesday evenings when it's warm out). Still, it's a great community-inspired market to check out.
Other Calgary flea markets
There are a few other smaller community-focused flea markets that I haven't been to, so I can't pass judgement. But, here's a bit more about them:
McKenzie Towne Farmers' Market (Open Thursdays in Calgary's SE)
ThornCliffe Greenview Farmers' Flea Market (Open Saturdays along Centre Street N)
Sweetgrass Market (Open weekdays and weekends in the deep SW of Calgary)
Just remember, If you come across one of these markets and there seems to be a high number of people with eyebrows that touch, you know you've struck flea market gold.
If there's one rule I go by in judging a flea/farmer's market value, it's how many uni-brow-sporting Ukrainians can be found there. The general guideline is, the more Ukrainians the better the flea market. The logic for this is simple: the spirit of the flea market is the antithesis of formality. A flea market is like a big family gathering, where everybody brings something to the table - it's this simple spirit of the community that makes them unique to a grocery store or mall.
Calgary Flea Markets
Crossroads Market
Crossroads market started in NE Calgary, but it has truly found its home at the crux of Inglewood and Ogden. Based on my rule, this is the quintessential Calgary flea market - it's filled with Ukrainians who sell a variety of products including cheese, farm eggs, cabbage rolls, ham hocks and honey - not to mention, the retail section where you can purchase handmade clothes, wax candles, salvaged antiques, ancient electronics and giant plaster wizards. To be honest, Crossroads is a total mess - but that's what makes it enthralling - the place is totally human and it hums with the creative energy of people coming together to share their work and interests. The farmer's market is the best Calgary has to offer, the restaurants inside are totally family-run and the retail section is an attic-digger's dream of new and used items.
Calgary Flea Market
The first thing you'll notice about the Calgary Flea Market (located on Currie Barracks in SW Calgary), is a distinct lack of Ukrainians - never a good sign. My experience with the Calgary Flea Market is this: it feels like a flea market for people who don't like flea markets. It's way too clean, well-lit and while the stores do offer handmade crafts or food, it's not in any way similar to the kinds of things you'll find at Crossroads. The vendors do offer some great products, but they are of the commercial variety, and honestly, fairly expensive. At the Calgary Flea Market you can get gourmet chicken sausage from a company that has it's own website. Same goes for any of the retail products - everything is of the high-end variety - and considering the clientele are coming from Lakeview and Mount Royal - that's fine. Just don't expect the same kind of family-knit ambiance that glows in Crossroads.
Hillhurst-Sunnyside Farmer's Market
While smaller in scale than the prominent flea markets in Calgary, the Hillhurts-Sunnyside Farmer's Market (located at the Hillhurst community center) is filled with a wonderful variety of homemade products or antique items. The offerings are more focused on crafts than food, but the vendors are no less enthusiastic to talk to people about their handicrafts. The only real drawback (other than smaller size and less
Ukrainians) is that it's not open for very long (Wednesday evenings when it's warm out). Still, it's a great community-inspired market to check out.
Other Calgary flea markets
There are a few other smaller community-focused flea markets that I haven't been to, so I can't pass judgement. But, here's a bit more about them:
McKenzie Towne Farmers' Market (Open Thursdays in Calgary's SE)
ThornCliffe Greenview Farmers' Flea Market (Open Saturdays along Centre Street N)
Sweetgrass Market (Open weekdays and weekends in the deep SW of Calgary)
Just remember, If you come across one of these markets and there seems to be a high number of people with eyebrows that touch, you know you've struck flea market gold.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
The lowdown on DLC: Where's our downloadable content? Part Two
Team Fortress of Brand Loyalty
Unlike the example of GTA4 with its one-shot downloadable content, Valve seems to take the never-ending beta approach. Like Google, nothing Valve does ever seems to be final, and that certainly goes for Team Fortress. There's no real update schedule, just a series of changes and upgrades as Valve sees fit - whether it's new maps or new character abilities - and of course, it's all free.
For Valve it seems, downloadable content is a way to continually cultivate a community, and more importantly, a loyal community. By constantly providing rewarding content for the players of its games, Valve is building strong brand loyalty. As such, the expectations and excitement for the company's next release, Left 4 Dead, are high precisely because the community has come to expect a strong multiplayer component with DLC - and for it, the community will reward Valve with its purchasing dollars.
The Far Crying game
In a similar vein, Ubisoft also makes games that continually provide new experiences. Although in the case of Far Cry 2, it's the community itself who's making the DLC. With a robust map editor, gamers can continually invent new playing experiences for Far Cry 2 and share them online. So while the game might not come with the same polish as COD4, it does offer endless innovation - and like Valve - this cultivates some pretty strong game loyalty.
Souless Caliber
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Namco has managed to irk its community with its use of DLC. In the case of Soul Caliber 4, it was made pretty obvious from the beginning that all the downloadable content was already available on the disc. However, Namco had much of it locked, and chose to make gamers continually pay through microtransactions to access the content, such as getting Darth Vader or Yoda (if your version didn't have one of them). The result is some pretty negative press and word-of-mouth. Rather than cultivate the community by rewarding them for being loyal gamers, Namco intends on profiting off of their enthusiasm for the game - I think one strategy builds loyalty and the other eats at it until there's nothing left.
What does it, what does it all mean?
So what is the monetary value of downloadable content? If the above examples are a guide, DLC does offer some benefits:
-New content means continual interest
-DLC makes the cost-of-entry high for competitors
-DLC can be rewarding from an exclusivity-deal agreement perspective
-DLC can foster strong brand loyalty (and disloyalty if handled incorrectly)
From my perspective, DLC works best when it's used like social media ala Facebook or Myspace - that means it's gotta be free.
It works best when it's free because it adds value to the game that the gameplayer didn't initially expect. In marketing we call this an unexpected bonus. It's something that I would not expect or miss if it wasn't in my game, but it adds a bonus if it is present, like updates to Team Fortress 2, or adding zombies in Grand Theft Auto 4 or the ability to constantly create new maps with no added cost in Far Cry 2.
When you do try to charge for it or monetize it in some capacity, you change the dynamic of the relationship. As Chris Anderson pointed out in an epic Wired Article, how your market treats free things is vastly different than how it treats things that have been assigned a value ("zero is one market and any other price is another").
When there is some direct remuneration for my DLC, whether that's paying for it straight-up or getting it free on some condition (ads, future subscription etc.), it makes me evaluate what I'm giving up in return and whether it's worth the effort or the dollars. For everyone who was excited about new maps in COD 4, there were an equal number dissatisfied at a perceived over-valued cost.
When the DLC is free, it's the developer/publisher taking the first step in the relationship - they are saying, we want to talk to you and we walk to entertain you. While the content is free, the developer/publisher gets something valuable in return, they get the game players' continued interest (versus other games out right now) and they get the game players' brand loyalty for when new games come out.
Free means that the developer is interested in the player for more than just their money, they show a genuine interest in investing in the players' fun. Just ask Valve and the buzz for its next release whether this kind of positive reinforcement via free DLC has a definitive, demonstrative financial value.
Where do we go from here?
Who knows? Will consoles be completely digital in the future? Some rumours say yes.
If this is the case, how will DLC be addressed, let alone piracy.
If all consoles go digital - how does that change the relationship between game player and developer/publisher?
When the content no longer comes in a box that I have to go pick up at the store, will it change how much I value it?
And bigger still, will it change my perception of what it means to call something a full game versus DLC - when all of it essentially becomes downloadable content.
Unlike the example of GTA4 with its one-shot downloadable content, Valve seems to take the never-ending beta approach. Like Google, nothing Valve does ever seems to be final, and that certainly goes for Team Fortress. There's no real update schedule, just a series of changes and upgrades as Valve sees fit - whether it's new maps or new character abilities - and of course, it's all free.
For Valve it seems, downloadable content is a way to continually cultivate a community, and more importantly, a loyal community. By constantly providing rewarding content for the players of its games, Valve is building strong brand loyalty. As such, the expectations and excitement for the company's next release, Left 4 Dead, are high precisely because the community has come to expect a strong multiplayer component with DLC - and for it, the community will reward Valve with its purchasing dollars.
The Far Crying game
In a similar vein, Ubisoft also makes games that continually provide new experiences. Although in the case of Far Cry 2, it's the community itself who's making the DLC. With a robust map editor, gamers can continually invent new playing experiences for Far Cry 2 and share them online. So while the game might not come with the same polish as COD4, it does offer endless innovation - and like Valve - this cultivates some pretty strong game loyalty.
Souless Caliber
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Namco has managed to irk its community with its use of DLC. In the case of Soul Caliber 4, it was made pretty obvious from the beginning that all the downloadable content was already available on the disc. However, Namco had much of it locked, and chose to make gamers continually pay through microtransactions to access the content, such as getting Darth Vader or Yoda (if your version didn't have one of them). The result is some pretty negative press and word-of-mouth. Rather than cultivate the community by rewarding them for being loyal gamers, Namco intends on profiting off of their enthusiasm for the game - I think one strategy builds loyalty and the other eats at it until there's nothing left.
What does it, what does it all mean?
So what is the monetary value of downloadable content? If the above examples are a guide, DLC does offer some benefits:
-New content means continual interest
-DLC makes the cost-of-entry high for competitors
-DLC can be rewarding from an exclusivity-deal agreement perspective
-DLC can foster strong brand loyalty (and disloyalty if handled incorrectly)
From my perspective, DLC works best when it's used like social media ala Facebook or Myspace - that means it's gotta be free.
It works best when it's free because it adds value to the game that the gameplayer didn't initially expect. In marketing we call this an unexpected bonus. It's something that I would not expect or miss if it wasn't in my game, but it adds a bonus if it is present, like updates to Team Fortress 2, or adding zombies in Grand Theft Auto 4 or the ability to constantly create new maps with no added cost in Far Cry 2.
When you do try to charge for it or monetize it in some capacity, you change the dynamic of the relationship. As Chris Anderson pointed out in an epic Wired Article, how your market treats free things is vastly different than how it treats things that have been assigned a value ("zero is one market and any other price is another").
When there is some direct remuneration for my DLC, whether that's paying for it straight-up or getting it free on some condition (ads, future subscription etc.), it makes me evaluate what I'm giving up in return and whether it's worth the effort or the dollars. For everyone who was excited about new maps in COD 4, there were an equal number dissatisfied at a perceived over-valued cost.
When the DLC is free, it's the developer/publisher taking the first step in the relationship - they are saying, we want to talk to you and we walk to entertain you. While the content is free, the developer/publisher gets something valuable in return, they get the game players' continued interest (versus other games out right now) and they get the game players' brand loyalty for when new games come out.
Free means that the developer is interested in the player for more than just their money, they show a genuine interest in investing in the players' fun. Just ask Valve and the buzz for its next release whether this kind of positive reinforcement via free DLC has a definitive, demonstrative financial value.
Where do we go from here?
Who knows? Will consoles be completely digital in the future? Some rumours say yes.
If this is the case, how will DLC be addressed, let alone piracy.
If all consoles go digital - how does that change the relationship between game player and developer/publisher?
When the content no longer comes in a box that I have to go pick up at the store, will it change how much I value it?
And bigger still, will it change my perception of what it means to call something a full game versus DLC - when all of it essentially becomes downloadable content.
Monday, November 10, 2008
The lowdown on DLC: Where’s our downloadable content?
Part one
The funny thing is – the popularity of COD4 is surprising given the lack of support it got from Infinity Ward via Activision:
Three new maps and some minor playlist updates.
This lack of support got me thinking – what is the value of DLC or downloadable content?
And what does it mean either financially or competitively to developers and publishers, and of course ultimately, gamers?
Call of Duty like clockwork
In the case of COD4, there’s an obvious answer why there are no more maps or playlists, despite the game’s popularity: Call of Duty 5.
Since Activision sticks to a yearly release schedule, gamers aren’t likely to see a lot of post-release support for these games. Simply, Activision isn’t going to release downloadable content that’s going to cannibalize their new game, COD5, for their old game, COD4. The easy answer is that anyone who was going to buy COD4 new already has – and the publisher has no financial gain when people buy it used.
It’s in Activision’s best interest to motivate gamers to buy the next installment using new content as the carrot, and then eventually we’ll all move on again to COD6 for the same reason.
So this approach makes financial sense – what does that mean for a company like Bungie, who has released a variety of map packs for Halo 3?
Don’t stop the Halo
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Halo 3 has seen a number of new maps released. While Bungie doesn’t have to worry about cannibalizing its own games, it does beg the question: what’s the value in releasing downloadable content or DLC for a game that’s been out for months. The chances of new purchases significantly drop after the first couple of months, and likely, many of the new players bought the game when it was used.
However, I do think there’s one reason for Bungie to keep releasing maps and that’s called entry to market. By continually to make new content, Bungie keeps its fanbase satisfied and makes it that much harder for other developers to lure this giant subset of gamers away to their game. It gives Bungie a competitive edge while they set to work on their next release. The more people still playing Halo 3 come Halo 4 time (or whatever they’re making), the easier it is for Bungie, and big daddy Microsoft, to make a sale.
Grand Theft Autopilot
So Bungie has its reasons for publishing DLC months after Halo 3’s release, but how about something like Grand Theft Auto 4? When it was first released, there were a myriad of promises of DLC. Now, it looks as though downloadable content won’t be coming until the new year – that makes it almost six months after it shipped to retail. Is there any value here?
Perhaps from the perspective that it means people will hold onto the games, but how does that work financially? The chances that many of the copies of GTA4 that were purchased used is quite high, and from a return on investment perspective, Take Two gets nothing back for delivering DLC to these buyers.
I would make the argument that GTA4 is the example of a company releasing downloadable content as part of an exclusivity agreement; Take Two will receive money back for the DLC, but it’s likely a part of a deal with Microsoft rather than the direct benefit of moving more units. As for Microsoft, at this point, the only benefit of the exclusive DLC is another bullet point on a marketing sales sheet.
Part two coming next week...
Monday, November 03, 2008
Wii Music Struggles to Sell
As I suggested in my previous post, Wii Music is competing in a market where casual gamers already feel that Rock Band and Guitar Hero are casual enough.
As this recent news post from Wired suggests, Wii Music is struggling to make the same kind of sales that came with Wii Sports or Wii Fit.
Perhaps it's just a minor miscalculation by Nintendo in terms of finding the right audience, or perhaps, Wii Music's struggles are a sign of bigger trends to come. I'll always applaud Nintendo for attempting to break out of the mold, but even so, I think there's danger in relying solely on a casual audience - sure it's a big market of people, but it's a fickle market too.
As this recent news post from Wired suggests, Wii Music is struggling to make the same kind of sales that came with Wii Sports or Wii Fit.
Perhaps it's just a minor miscalculation by Nintendo in terms of finding the right audience, or perhaps, Wii Music's struggles are a sign of bigger trends to come. I'll always applaud Nintendo for attempting to break out of the mold, but even so, I think there's danger in relying solely on a casual audience - sure it's a big market of people, but it's a fickle market too.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Wii Music Too Casual for Casual Gamers?
With the release of Wii Music this week, a lot of gamers are paying special attention to how it’s received by the general public. Why would that be?
Because, for many gamers, Wii Music is symbolic of Nintendo’s movement away from traditional “games.” When it was first presented at E3, the buzz was hardly positive. With no rules and essentially no way to win at the game, some critics considered it nothing but a toy. For core gamers, it seemed outright alien. It was a game you couldn’t play.
Now, the release imminent, gamers are wondering whether Nintendo’s full shift to casual will replicate the successes of Wii Play and Wii Fit. If the game does well, it could very well mean the end of core Nintendo games. After all, the games will go where the money goes.
So with that in mind, it’s interesting to see that the game’s launch in
I have a suspicion that Wii music won’t be successful (or as successful as Nintendo’s other casual games) and the reason is that it’s too casual for even casual gamers.
The problem is, casual gamers are already used to rhythm-based games and these games are not nearly as casual as Wii Music.
Guitar Hero and Rock Band are phenomenal successes and certainly a large reason for that is their wide adoption by those that fit into the casual game territory. As Gamesutra points out, the term causal game is pretty broad and Guitar Hero and Rock Band definitely fall under the genre. What that means is that a large percentage of the people Nintendo has targeted previously with the likes of Wii Play and Wii Fit have likely played a plastic guitar or drum set before.
That said, these people are already familiar with the structures of these games, which arguably are a grey area between casual and non-casual. Sure, you can pick up Guitar Hero and just start playing, but it adheres to some pretty traditional structures, such as points, bonuses for doing well, and penalties or ending the game for failing. Though the rhythm and music components of these games give them a broad appeal, they still play like core games.
Now, Nintendo is trying to entice this audience to play a similar rhythm and music-based game, except without the need for points, or even winning. I would argue that this won’t appeal to casual gamers coming up on Guitar Hero or Rock Band because they’ve already been socialized by these other game structures – they’ve come to expect points for playing well and losing for not playing well – and by removing this aspect of the game, you are removing one of the, now, key reasons they play it.
I could certainly be proven wrong this December at the registers, but I’m betting that the people Nintendo hopes will play Wii Music are the same ones saving up to get Guitar Hero and Rock Band instead.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Call of Duty 5 Beta Impressions
So somehow the gods smiled on me and I got a beta test for Call of Duty 5. After the highly successful Modern Warfare, we turn back to World War 2 and back to Treyarch, the much-maligned maker of the lackluster Call of Duty 3. So what’s the verdict? Did Treyarch make good on a promise to improve on their last effort? Did they top Infinity Ward’s gem?
The answer is yes, but it’s also no….the beta gave me access to World at War’s (WAW) multiplayer with five modes and three maps to try. Here’s my point-by-point breakdown:
Maps
Good
Good
Good
Bad
The game is a reasonable step forward, but it’s not without its issues. While the engine is the same as Modern Warfare, Treyarch’s the driver and they don’t bring the same level of polish to the game. It’s a case where Treyarch has added new features, but without fully considering the impact of them on the game play.
Sure some things in WAW sound cool, but it ends there in actual use. Infinity Ward seems to get this concept and regrettably it’s lost in translation for Treyarch. WAW has potential and some good ideas, but it remains to be seen if the myriad of rough spots will mar the game’s lasting power.
The answer is yes, but it’s also no….the beta gave me access to World at War’s (WAW) multiplayer with five modes and three maps to try. Here’s my point-by-point breakdown:
Maps
Good
- Castle and Roundhouse are solidly put together; there’s a ton of variety – open spaces and tight quarters. This makes for interesting matches.
- The artistic design is well done for these levels; varied colors and textures between vegetation, buildings and items.
- The ancient Japanese setting of Castle brings something novel to the table. The level takes place on a steep incline which adds some interesting dynamics.
- Roundhouse takes place in a massive trainyard with blown-out buildings and some clever catwalks. There are a ton of nooks and crannies to hide.
- Malkin takes place on a Japanese island outpost – sounds promising but…
- It feels a little off. The set design is too cluttered. It’s a case of there being too much lying around. I found it bottlenecks the action.
- Everything in this level is dark brown. I realize that it’s supposed to be night, but it’s almost impossible to distinguish friend from foe, or foe from vegetation, or foe from building.
Good
- Since WAW runs on the same engine that built Modern Warfare, the gameplay is similar – same controls, same movement, same framerate.
- But it’s thankfully slightly different as well – moving seems faster, especially running.
- The bonuses for kill streaks have changed – for 7 kills, it’s dogs, which works surprisingly well. The dogs aren’t invincible, but they can surprise you. Plus, they’re great at rooting out campers because the dogs can pretty much go anywhere a person can. That means walkways aren’t always safe.
- Another positive is that the Tanks feel fairly balanced. They are powerful (they are tanks after all), but a couple of good rocket strikes can take them out. Driving them is pretty intuitive and there’s nothing more satisfying that firing a shell into a sniper’s nest (at least for me on Roundhouse anyway).
- The gametypes are decent and varied – War is a welcome change – you have to consecutively capture points which adds a new challenge because it’s a single flag to attack or defend. Plus, all the standard modes seem to be intact.
- It’s probably just a beta thing, but the spawns are atrocious. Modern Warfare’s were pretty good for the genre. WAW’s are not at all. You’ll find yourself dying at least 2-3 times just because of spawns where you’ll magically appear in front of a group of enemies or worse, someone will spawn right after you on Free for All, garnering them a free shot at your back.
- The artillery strikes are loud and mostly useless. Unlike an air strike, the artillery lasts a long time and hits a large patch of map. The problem here is that it’s too spread out to accurately pinpoint a group of enemies and it’s length and effects can distract you and your team as much as the enemies.
Good
- Sniping is easier – it doesn’t take as long to stop breathing (just half a second as opposed to two seconds) and the action of the rifles feels more stable.
- There’s extra modding ability – now you can add surpressors, sights or extra ammunition as part of a weapon’s upgrades.
- For what they are, there’s a good stable of weapons and anachronistic mods to make the guns feel similar to Modern Warfare.
- Grenades feel underpowered. It takes a near direct hit to take out an enemy.
- Molotov cocktails don’t work at all – unless you hit the person directly, the flames render no damage. You can stand in a room on fire and not be hurt.
- Flares aren’t useful – they’re meant to blind, but they don’t. You can still pretty much see so they don’t accomplish the same thing as a flash bang.
Bad
- Juggernaut – since a lot of the guns seem to come with less power than in Modern Warfare, I found myself getting 8-9 assists in a match. That’s because it can be near impossible to kill an opponent without having to shoot them multiple times.
- Revive isn’t useful – Revive gives you last stand, but it also lets you revive an ally who’s in last stand. Because players are so used to last stand, the latter perk never comes into play – at least not in multiplayer mode.
The game is a reasonable step forward, but it’s not without its issues. While the engine is the same as Modern Warfare, Treyarch’s the driver and they don’t bring the same level of polish to the game. It’s a case where Treyarch has added new features, but without fully considering the impact of them on the game play.
Sure some things in WAW sound cool, but it ends there in actual use. Infinity Ward seems to get this concept and regrettably it’s lost in translation for Treyarch. WAW has potential and some good ideas, but it remains to be seen if the myriad of rough spots will mar the game’s lasting power.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Friday, August 08, 2008
Brett Favre and the Madden Curse
Back in 1999, Electronic Arts (EA) decided to stop putting John Madden on the front cover of its Madden NFL video game. Instead, EA started featuring football players instead. What followed out of that is an increasingly odd trend – that whatever athlete makes the cover tends to have either a down season or their worst season period. Otherwise known as the Madden Curse.
Curses!
Take for example the 1999 cover – Eddie George. In 1998 George had a spectacular season and helped his team to the Super Bowl. Then he appeared on the Madden cover. His next season was filled with injuries and he never fully recovered, going into a slow decline. The year Michael Vick appeared on the cover – he broke his leg and didn’t play the whole season. The year Shaun Alexander appeared on the cover, he injured his foot, missed a bunch of games and looked terrible in the rest. The year Ray Lewis appeared on the cover, he fought injuries the whole season and ended up with his worst statistical year, plus his team missed the playoffs after winning the Super Bowl the year before.
Unretirement is a verb
So this year, perhaps EA tried to play it safe. They put a retired player on their cover. He can’t get injured right? Well, what he can do is not stay retired – as the current cover jockey just did.
For Madden 2009, EA decided to feature Brett Favre – and it’s going to be a mistake that haunts them all year. With Favre a) announcing his un-retirement and b) creating a Minnesota Vikings-sized boatload of drama and now c) getting traded to the New York Jets – the curse has clearly struck again.
So now, Madden 2009 will feature Favre in a Packers uniform – a team he won’t be playing with this year and a team he clearly left on bad terms, damaging his legacy in the NFL.
The one thing I have to wonder is – since EA won’t be updating their cover – will they be updating the roster so that the Jets have Favre?
Curses!
Take for example the 1999 cover – Eddie George. In 1998 George had a spectacular season and helped his team to the Super Bowl. Then he appeared on the Madden cover. His next season was filled with injuries and he never fully recovered, going into a slow decline. The year Michael Vick appeared on the cover – he broke his leg and didn’t play the whole season. The year Shaun Alexander appeared on the cover, he injured his foot, missed a bunch of games and looked terrible in the rest. The year Ray Lewis appeared on the cover, he fought injuries the whole season and ended up with his worst statistical year, plus his team missed the playoffs after winning the Super Bowl the year before.
Unretirement is a verb
So this year, perhaps EA tried to play it safe. They put a retired player on their cover. He can’t get injured right? Well, what he can do is not stay retired – as the current cover jockey just did.
For Madden 2009, EA decided to feature Brett Favre – and it’s going to be a mistake that haunts them all year. With Favre a) announcing his un-retirement and b) creating a Minnesota Vikings-sized boatload of drama and now c) getting traded to the New York Jets – the curse has clearly struck again.
So now, Madden 2009 will feature Favre in a Packers uniform – a team he won’t be playing with this year and a team he clearly left on bad terms, damaging his legacy in the NFL.
The one thing I have to wonder is – since EA won’t be updating their cover – will they be updating the roster so that the Jets have Favre?
Friday, July 25, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Music Review: Depreciation Guild, Helio Sequence, JDSY
Depreciation Guild
In Her Gentle Jaws
One part Kevin Shields, one part Mario bros., the Depreciation Guild make fuzzed-out shoegaze music that sounds like some long-lost super Nintendo soundtrack – all gauzy effects-laden guitars mashing it up with MIDI bleeps and beats. While it’s not in the same camp as the neo-gazing of M83, it’s at least in the same campground, sharing the same penchant for woozy vocals and melancholic textures. Where it differs is in the percussion, which buzzes with the energy of a hungry arcade – throbbing drum machines and pulsing keyboards kick the whole affair into a decidedly different atmosphere, making for an invigoratingly unique listen.
Highlights: Butterfly Kisses, Digital Solace, In Her Gentle Jaws
Helio Sequence
Keep Your Eyes Ahead
Who knew that losing your voice could make you a better singer? In the case of Brandon Summers of Helio Sequence, losing his voice forced him to re-learn how to sing – good thing though because it’s a boon to the already dynamic mix of effects-heavy guitar and off-kilter drums. With past albums, the instruments did the heavy lifting and Summer’s voice barely tread water. Here, vocals are as strong as the music, fleshing in new bits of melody and context – that said, some lyrics borrow a bit too much from Dylan (Shed Your Love), but it’s a minor misstep on a mostly promising release.
Highlights: Lately, Back to This, Hallelujah
JDSY
Adage of Known
Intelligent dance music isn’t dead, it’s just sleeping – so proves JDSY (Joey Sims) straight from New York with the kaleidoscope Adage of Known – a dance album that smartly left dance at the door. JDSY isn’t looking to get feet moving, he’s looking to get heads spinning with electronic songs that are actual songs, with actual verses, melodies, choruses, climaxes and denouements. It’s oddly claustrophobic and sparse at the same time – the beats are dense and closet in the vocals, but the tone and pace is warm and welcoming – it’s a fascinating tension that sculpts the unexpected into audio satisfaction.
Highlights: Staircase, Drifter, Horizon Line
In Her Gentle Jaws
One part Kevin Shields, one part Mario bros., the Depreciation Guild make fuzzed-out shoegaze music that sounds like some long-lost super Nintendo soundtrack – all gauzy effects-laden guitars mashing it up with MIDI bleeps and beats. While it’s not in the same camp as the neo-gazing of M83, it’s at least in the same campground, sharing the same penchant for woozy vocals and melancholic textures. Where it differs is in the percussion, which buzzes with the energy of a hungry arcade – throbbing drum machines and pulsing keyboards kick the whole affair into a decidedly different atmosphere, making for an invigoratingly unique listen.
Highlights: Butterfly Kisses, Digital Solace, In Her Gentle Jaws
Helio Sequence
Keep Your Eyes Ahead
Who knew that losing your voice could make you a better singer? In the case of Brandon Summers of Helio Sequence, losing his voice forced him to re-learn how to sing – good thing though because it’s a boon to the already dynamic mix of effects-heavy guitar and off-kilter drums. With past albums, the instruments did the heavy lifting and Summer’s voice barely tread water. Here, vocals are as strong as the music, fleshing in new bits of melody and context – that said, some lyrics borrow a bit too much from Dylan (Shed Your Love), but it’s a minor misstep on a mostly promising release.
Highlights: Lately, Back to This, Hallelujah
JDSY
Adage of Known
Intelligent dance music isn’t dead, it’s just sleeping – so proves JDSY (Joey Sims) straight from New York with the kaleidoscope Adage of Known – a dance album that smartly left dance at the door. JDSY isn’t looking to get feet moving, he’s looking to get heads spinning with electronic songs that are actual songs, with actual verses, melodies, choruses, climaxes and denouements. It’s oddly claustrophobic and sparse at the same time – the beats are dense and closet in the vocals, but the tone and pace is warm and welcoming – it’s a fascinating tension that sculpts the unexpected into audio satisfaction.
Highlights: Staircase, Drifter, Horizon Line
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Public relations: Google owns you
The day of the newspaper is almost over. So says David Meerman Scott in the New Rules of Marketing and PR. He implores PR professionals to stop spending time writing “press releases” where we hammer out a lifeless sheet that’s been vetted through a million committees, legal departments and the like – and then cross our fingers, post it to a PR wire and hope some journalist likes it enough to contact us. It’s such a convoluted process and with the democratization of information via the Internet, it’s brutally ineffective.
The truth is – traditional PR isn’t working anymore. That’s because traditional media isn’t working anymore. The latest statistics show that newspaper readership continues to decline, and the same for television. Less and less people are reading or watching traditional news. That means less and less people are going to read our stories through these channels.
The Internet is growing significantly as the news medium of choice. And it’s not just traditional sites like CNN, its user-generated sites like Digg, stumbleupon, del.ici.ous where the readers decide what’s most relevant to them. The Internet is democratizing Journalism and that means it’s also democratizing public relations.
Our landscape is changing significantly – half of what I learned in PR school no longer applies. In ten years, I’m sure most of it won’t apply at all. With that said, the guiding principles of public relations, communicating, will always be relevant. The rise of the Internet isn’t the end of PR – it’s just means re-evaluating how the cycle works.
Instead of creating “push” pieces, we need to start creating “pull” pieces. Instead of talking at our audiences with press releases, glossy newsletters, over-produced annual reports, we need to start having genuine conversations. In marketing, guru Seth Godin coined the term “permission marketing” for this approach. For us, it’s should be called “permission communication.”
We need to start creating “news releases” that any person can find on the Internet easily, read and understand. That means optimizing our releases for searching on the Internet, which means eliminating the jargon, eliminating the PR-speak, and writing plainly and simply.
It’s quite simple: Google owns you. That’s how the majority of people will look for your company, your products and your news. The “pull” approach means that you stop writing at your audience and instead let them come to you. Let them find you easily with Google, and when they do, make it easy for them to do what they want on your site, so that it’s rewarding and meaningful for them.
Once you show that you’re genuine about delivering the best and most useful content and information to the people that want to read about you. They will trust you and they will keep coming back.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Video Games: Guess what, Wii Fit sucks
Wii Virus
A while back, the President of Epic games compared the Nintendo Wii to a virus. Basically, he explained that the Wii was the perfect PR hype machine. It’s the kind of product everyone talks about, but once they own, they stop playing it. As an early adopter of the Wii, unfortunately, I’d have to agree. Essentially, the Wii’s endless hype, and subsequent retail dominance can be traced to two factors: first experience and word-of-mouth.
First experience basically means that the Wii is built to be awesome when you first try it. Who can’t remember trying out Wii sports tennis for the first time and being blown away by how much fun it was to swing the remote? The problem is, this experience doesn’t become more rewarding the more you play the game – if anything it stays the same or drops as familiarity leads to tedium. The reason for this is that Wii sports is a casual game, and by nature, it’s game play is shallow. There’s no real progress and there’s no real depth to continually playing. It’s the same exact game each time you turn it on.
However, because the first experience is totally awesome, it leads to a lot of positive word-of-mouth. Here’s the typical scenario: Your friends try Wii at a friend’s house, and the next you thing you know, they’re telling everyone how great it was. It’s not reflective of actually owning the Wii, but that hardly matters. The word-of-mouth spreads like wildfire, increasing demand, decreasing supply, which just reinforces the cycle.
Wii aren’t Fit
Now, here comes the Wii fit to replicate the experience of Wii Sports. It’s the same exact situation. There’s uncontrollable hype for the game because it is a lot of fun to play for the first 10-15 minutes. Add in promises of getting fit and you have another game that’s being driven by word of mouth. The reality however, is that Wii fit is just as shallow as Wii Sports and owning it, isn’t nearly as fun as just trying it. The evidence can be seen in growing dissatisfied Amazon posts or the huge number of gamers who are already giving up on Wii Fit’s fitness programs.
Couple this with the fact that the Wii is still struggling to sell third-party games and my earlier prediction still holds strong. I feel strongly that the Wii’s innovation, while unique and needed in the video game market, simply isn’t enough.
The Wii’s technical limitations mean that it’s not appealing for most developers who are concentrating on next-generation titles. Add that to the fact that the Wii’s glut of cheap imitation games makes it different for its consumers to choose quality games – resulting in people only buying name brand games (Nintendo games) means that third-party developers will be less willing to design games that just won’t sell.
A while back, the President of Epic games compared the Nintendo Wii to a virus. Basically, he explained that the Wii was the perfect PR hype machine. It’s the kind of product everyone talks about, but once they own, they stop playing it. As an early adopter of the Wii, unfortunately, I’d have to agree. Essentially, the Wii’s endless hype, and subsequent retail dominance can be traced to two factors: first experience and word-of-mouth.
First experience basically means that the Wii is built to be awesome when you first try it. Who can’t remember trying out Wii sports tennis for the first time and being blown away by how much fun it was to swing the remote? The problem is, this experience doesn’t become more rewarding the more you play the game – if anything it stays the same or drops as familiarity leads to tedium. The reason for this is that Wii sports is a casual game, and by nature, it’s game play is shallow. There’s no real progress and there’s no real depth to continually playing. It’s the same exact game each time you turn it on.
However, because the first experience is totally awesome, it leads to a lot of positive word-of-mouth. Here’s the typical scenario: Your friends try Wii at a friend’s house, and the next you thing you know, they’re telling everyone how great it was. It’s not reflective of actually owning the Wii, but that hardly matters. The word-of-mouth spreads like wildfire, increasing demand, decreasing supply, which just reinforces the cycle.
Wii aren’t Fit
Now, here comes the Wii fit to replicate the experience of Wii Sports. It’s the same exact situation. There’s uncontrollable hype for the game because it is a lot of fun to play for the first 10-15 minutes. Add in promises of getting fit and you have another game that’s being driven by word of mouth. The reality however, is that Wii fit is just as shallow as Wii Sports and owning it, isn’t nearly as fun as just trying it. The evidence can be seen in growing dissatisfied Amazon posts or the huge number of gamers who are already giving up on Wii Fit’s fitness programs.
Couple this with the fact that the Wii is still struggling to sell third-party games and my earlier prediction still holds strong. I feel strongly that the Wii’s innovation, while unique and needed in the video game market, simply isn’t enough.
The Wii’s technical limitations mean that it’s not appealing for most developers who are concentrating on next-generation titles. Add that to the fact that the Wii’s glut of cheap imitation games makes it different for its consumers to choose quality games – resulting in people only buying name brand games (Nintendo games) means that third-party developers will be less willing to design games that just won’t sell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)