Monday, January 17, 2011
Game Companies or "Game Companies"?
A recent article on IGN.com sparked my curiosity on marketing and shift in business interest in this current generation of gaming. Between the PS3 and Xbox 360, recently we are being told that these systems are NOT gaming consoles but are instead "something more." More specifically both consoles are trying to become the centerpieces of the family entertainment center through increasingly more and more complex add-ons and marketing.
The reasoning behind this is simple and no more noteworthy than a fast food chain offering a new sandwich with "apple wood bacon" or "mountain jack cheese." Will the sandwich taste incredibly different than what was offered before? Doubtful. But the goal is clear, to draw in new customers, and clearly members of the gaming community are being told again and again that we are not worth it anymore. Our community is too small to keep up with the ever expanding game industry it seems.
With the additions of Kinect and Sony's Move, gamers of yesteryear are becoming all but obsolete as gaming companies strive to collect anyone remaining no matter what demographic category that person falls into. Both companies following in Nintendo's footsteps have realized the gaming community as it was, was far too small and largely unprofitable. Once Nintendo opened the floodgates of the market to nearly any demographic, Sony and Microsoft took note and are now scratching and clawing their way to appeal to those new groups as much as humanly possible.
The question, and problem I'm dealing with is will this lead to the downfall of gaming as we know it? It's really looking that way. Both Sony and Microsoft are outwardly against calling their machine a gaming system all of the sudden. Not more than 3 or 4 mere years ago they were fighting tooth and nail at how many exclusive games they had, and which system had more power and how the Blu-Ray format would fail. On and on they went, but here we are in 2011 and all they can argue about is who got Netflix and Hulu on their system first. Which has an internet browser, and which can play Blu-Ray movies. Which system can be voice activated and sans a controller.
These are not gaming movements by any means, and profitability will drive their futures. Is it more profitable to produce games like Dead Space, or video chat apps for Kinect? That's what developers will ask, and are asking. The answer if obvious for anyone following the likes of Nintendo and Pop-Cap games. But it's further escalated when these two companies are now trying to take over the hub of entertainment itself.
What's worse is consumers are buying into it and wasting their money. A decent PC off the line at HP or Dell can do what any video game console can do and much more. However, PC's don't advertise themselves like game consoles. HP or Dell won't say our PC is not a PC like game companies say our game system is not a game system. I believe that's what irks me most about this recent marketing affair. They are going so far to stray away from the idea that the PS3 or Xbox 360 actually plays video games, they almost seem to cringe at the idea that they do in fact play games.
I think the main issue I take from this is not only the idea that I and my fellow gaming community cohorts are no longer required, but the idea that Sony and Microsoft are falling into a shallow place of a cliched phrase "Jack of all trades, masters of none." Currently, both systems house credible third party titles that further push the boundaries of gaming any way they can but it's becoming less and less prevalent over the years.
Developers are closing their doors faster and faster, changing names, merging with larger developers, and normally making one game then vanishing forever. Many of them now are profiting through games on Facebook, or cell phone games to outweigh losses through making big budget games. The day is coming when these developers no longer see the need for the big budget title at all, and that may be coming sooner than we think.
Not to mention gaming is getting more and more dependent on sequels as companies become more wary on what games will bring a return and what games won't. After Nier and The World Ends with You Square openly said they would not be doing any new IP's in the forseeable future as both games sold poorly (but both were infinitely better than Final Fantasy 11, 12, 13 and 14 combined). They also just approved future game names such as Final Fantasy 13-2 and Final Fantasy Type-0, Type-1, and Type-2. What the holy hell is this? How far into sequel and prequel naming do we have to get to before people realize these games are terrible now?
Beyond that we're into so many new iterations of Call of Duty and Rock Band, and World of Warcraft expansions that they stopped numbering them all-together. Most games of a series have reached the 5's and 6's and those numbers are growing fast. Soon there won't be any creative eye driving gaming, there will only be one game to classify a genre much in the way EA did with Madden in the football sim game genre. You better love Call of Duty, because soon that may be the only series able to financially hold it's own in the first person shooter genre in the future.
...or the genre will be reduced to an Iphone app where you click on your friends and a video pops up of them pretending to be shot...then you see a "+10" added to your score.
^^^patent pending^^^
*Change is scary...ever see Lincoln on the penny? His eye is following me!*
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment