Having come within moments of posting a nice little piece on self-reference in video games, I came across this New York Times article, as linked through GameGal, and I just can’t hold my tongue.
“A Game Console for the Rest of Us” tells us readers about how Microsoft is taking a new direction with the 360, and, instead of catering to “hardcore” gamers, is “aiming for your mothers and wives.” Yup, they’re after the mainstream itself, but, as one analyst predicts, “It’s a tough sell.”
This, at first, may seem like a good thing. Hey, Microsoft is interested in advertising directed at women; they care about women as consumers. How can that be bad?
First of all, women gamers are NOT “the rest of us.” This approach is only messes with conceptions of equality. It makes the obnoxious assumption that all “hardcore”, aka “real”, gamers are male. Some women don’t need special flowery ads, or girl “mainstream” titles. Real girl gamers exist, and at least one of them is pissed.
Next point: the idea itself implies that women are peripheral. It’s not that Microsoft is seeking out young women and campaigning toward their interests. They’re talking about “mothers” and “wives” - women defined only in relationship to gaming men. Which essentially says, We’re not interested in women as gamers, we’re interested in them as extensions of our real consumers. But since they are sort of naggy, it’s important to win them over, since they control the purse strings. Come on.
(I’m nobody’s mother, and nobody’s wife. And you know what, if I were a girl who played Madden, after reading those quotes from Microsoft, I’d be fuming.)
The fact of the matter is, Microsoft is majorly missing the boat. They’re pretending to care. And there’s one big reason why they fail: they don’t actually give a damn. Look a little closer at what they’re saying here. Women gamers, not important. What’s important to them is money. Get your mom to like the 360 and she’ll fork over the cash.
It’s just one more part of Microsoft’s plan to smash down the walls of the gaming community and make video games a totally mainstream (and therefore totally more profitable) thing. Why do you think they got into this business in the first place? Sure, they make a good product, but the people who develop are different from those who sell. We’re talking big business here. And, as someone interested in the uniqueness of the gaming culture, I can’t say I’m too pleased.
Gender equality, my ass. They’d be marketing to your grandparents if they thought it would bring in the dough. Wives and mothers. Really! Someone should be slapped.
October 12th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
My concern with this marketing approach is not whether or not it’s sexist or just insulting to female gamers. Without seeing the marketing materials involved, I couldn’t say. [It may be tongue-in-cheek, rather than serious, for instance.] Rather, it just sounds idiotic.
Historically, promoting the non-gaming “multimedia” features of consoles (e.g., the ability to play CDs or DVDs) has had a negligible impact on sales, as far as I can tell. Consoles are first and foremost about gaming - everyone knows it, why pretend otherwise? What non-gaming mother / wife / girlfriend is gonna “authorize” the purchase of a $300 or $400 gaming console because it “displays photos?” Only a particularly *stupid* one.
Now let’s look at the issue of offering games that appeal to a more casual audience as a way of attracting more women who don’t already game. Great idea…if MS had anything in the pipes which didn’t scream “hardcore.” Look at any list of Xbox 360 titles and what do you see? More of the same: sequels to well-proven franchises and “original” titles which neatly fit into established genres - much of it skewing towards the “mature” (read as: bloody violent) end of things. Great news for fans of those games - not so great for attracting new blood, though.
The PS2 and Gamecube have far more quirky, inventive, original, non-violent titles than the Xbox does - titles necessary if you want to attract women who don’t like carnage or pro sports or nubile digital mannequins. I don’t see anything on the horizon for the 360 which doesn’t scream, “More of the same, only SHINIER!” And all the marketing dollars in the world won’t make that simple fact go away.
You want to get more girls into gaming? Maybe you should get people who understand girls *and* games to pitch to them. One sample:
http://maj1013.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=5852573&publicUserId=5495465
October 12th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Bonnie: I couldn’t have said it better. Urgh… I hate it when people define women’s roles or activities in terms of men’s roles/activities.
And I agree with the previous commenter. The 360 doesn’t have any games that attract people who are traditionally non-gamers. They’ve billed the 360 as a multimedia machine — a console that will play DVDs and do other cool non-gaming things, but how will that attract a non-gamer to play games? The Revolution is the only console that is actively trying to pull in the non-gamer.
October 12th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Ferrous, you’re completely ignoring Xbox Live Arcade, which has tons of games that are designed to appeal to people of all ages/races/sexes/etc. The boxed games at Best Buy are only a part of the Xbox’s library, and I think that’s where they’re going with this ad campaign.
October 12th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
I think, in general, the Xbox has a sort of “manly” image that the GameCube (the “kiddy” system) or the PS2 (the “RPG” system) lacks. This, as people have mentioned, is what Microsoft is fighting against - not that they’re doing anything too effective, except slapping on some idiotic PR about controllers and your mom.
October 12th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
James makes a good point. In slight defense of Microsoft, there’s a casual games market out there which appeals to people who normally wouldn’t consider themselves “gamers” (my mother, for instance, plays card games or titles like Bejeweled when she’s procrastinating at the computer). I think Microsoft means to attract these types of gamers to the 360 through Xbox Live Arcade, which is essentially geared toward purchasing these types of games on-demand, and running online scoreboards and multiplayer capabilities through Xbox Live.
I think this was where they were going with their marketing, but they’ve made a few errors in judgment, like letting Bill Nielson talk without a leash. His words to the wives and mothers of the world? “This is for you, too, not just for me to play Madden.” What a winner. If I was a mother, I’d buy ten. -sj
October 12th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
You’re right; there are definitely still casual gamers out there who could be targeted (granted, for Microsoft’s same messed up reasons), but they’re not specifically women, they’re just non-gamers, and as much as big business wants to deny it, those two things are the same.
Plus, dude, I know your mother. Sure, she plays puzzles during office hours. But you got her an Atari for Hanukah, and she forgot that it ever existed. She ain’t never gonna buy an Xbox. Honestly, no amount of girly advertising is ever going to change that.
October 12th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
No, but if I bought an Xbox, and it lived in the den, and she decides to play a little Solitaire or Bewjeweled on it one day, she might be tempted to buy more casual games through Arcade…
…and from there she jumps right into Halo 2, right? Right? Is that how it works? -sj
October 12th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
Can you see your mother with a controller in her hand? Let’s be honest here. There’s a difference between sitting at a computer, and sitting at a system. And even though you just yelled at me (in person) for picking on your mom, I think this is representative of a larger issue.
October 12th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
Why would anyone buy a $400+ games machine to play Bejeweled or Solitarie on it? At least a computer can do loads of other things, including play DVDs, music, and you can do word processing and surf the internets.
October 12th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
The XBox marketing program may be condescending: I don’t know, I really haven’t paid attention to it. But lets say (for argument’s sake) that they really are targeting the untapped “casual” or nervous/first time player, that is stereotypically female.
Bonnie, I’m probably not reading you right. But it *sounds* like you are more upset with Microsoft for wanting to make money out of a new market than you are with them trying to address so-called “casual” gamers.
Why would a publically held company target a new market? Out of the goodness of their heart and in order to bring new players into the gaming fold? Because of some deeper social conscience? Heck no- to make money. More money. More and more and more money.
Don’t blame the big companies. The big companies basically just do what they are “told” to do. Modern stockholders aren’t happy like there were 40 years ago with constant 7-10% profit each year. They want 20% profit, and they want it to grow by 15-20% each year.
Personally, I find this “cancerous” version of capitalism sad and pathetic. But if I don’t like it, I can really only blame myself- I’m just like 90% of the rest of modern North Americans. I want more, better, faster, and I want it all the time. Well, I’m generalizing- I’m not that extreme, but I think any of us who are honest with ourselves will admit that this type of rampant consumerism is part of who we are.
Boiling it down…if a company addresses the female gamer market (and I’m not saying Microsoft is doing this well), I would think the *only* reason they would do so would be to make more money. That’s the only reason the address the male gamer market, after all…
October 12th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
Kelly, you make a good point, namely that everything in this industry, at its heart, is about money. Maybe my logic doesn’t make total sense, maybe I should understand that they’re going to aim their guns at the “mainstream” in hopes of getting more cash, plain and simple - but frankly, I’m a bit blinded with pissed off-ness. The system is the system. I I get that. I just can’t deal with it when a company like Microsoft drags in their bull-shit care for female gamers. Plus, in the meantime, they’re kicking the ladder out from under real girl gamers with their brilliant “mother, wife” campaign. Then there’s the whole other issue of mainstreaming the gaming industry. They’re doing it for a profit, of course, and perhaps that’s inevitable. But some part of me can’t help but cling to the hope that people have, I don’t know, some morals. I guess I should be used to this stuff, but when someone steps into my territory (that is, gender issues in gaming) with such transparent crap, I have a hard time taking it sitting down. Again, apologies; mostly, I’m just pissed.
October 13th, 2005 at 5:26 am
Riffing on Brinstar a bit here…
I feel like the only company actively attempting to attract new gamers (not specifically moms and wives, but new gamers of any stripe) is Nintendo. The Revolution teaser showed men, women, old folks, young folks; I’m not even sure which ones were supposed to be the hardcore gamers and which weren’t. Well, except maybe for the guy playing Zelda at the end — but even he was living in a clean apartment and receiving phone calls, and turning his game off for them, how hardcore could he be? :)
The reason why? It seems to me that Nintendo is attempting to deliver new experiences, believing that new experiences will bring new markets (which appears to be working for them, in Japan and abroad). They aren’t attempting to target women, they’re attempting to broaden the market overall, which includes every demographic. Xbox360 is just doing new marketing. There’s a big difference.
It’s crazy. For my money, there’s a lot about the Revolution that makes it the best bet for developers — it will be cheaper to develop for (simpler, well-known hardware architecture), it’s presenting a single flavor (rather than the casual/hardcore splintering the 360 is doing from day 1), and it’s presenting a low-bar-to-consumer-entry controller. And yet, I know publishers aren’t actively pursuing it.
October 13th, 2005 at 7:10 am
Which, of course, goes back to the old Nintendo issue of image. Personally, I’m a Nintendo fanboy (eh, fangirl), and I totally hear/agree with what you’re saying, Brett. But, in a lot of ways, Nintendo is getting left behind, not because they’re doing a poor job, but specifically because they don’t buy into that hypocritical hardcore stuff. Most of the 20-something men I know (okay, apart from the ones at school, because this is liberal arts college and the guys are effeminate and wonderful :-)) wouldn’t ever consider a Nintendo console. The real market, in their mind, is between Xbox and PlayStation. Hopefully though, all the goodness of the Revolution will win some new fans.
October 13th, 2005 at 7:32 am
James: Xbox Live Arcade requires you to have an Xbox ($150), Xbox Live ($50/yr), and a broadband connection ($40-$50/month); what casual gamer is going to shell out that kinda money to play some “free” games? Games they could doubtless find in other forms for a lot less elsewhere. Perhaps more to the point, what casual gamer would even know about those Xbox Live Arcade games in the first place? No, to my mind, XLA is a lil’ freebie for the hardcore who are already on Xbox Live, not an inducement to attract casual gamers.
Bonnie: I’m not sure what’s offending you here. Or rather, it’s clear that this campaign isn’t about targeting female gamers; it’s about targeting the women in (male) gamers’ lives who aren’t gamers, but who have some say in their purchasing decisions. Maybe MS has some scheme for targeting existing female gamers; maybe they just presume you gals will come along for the ride regardless. Are you saying you wish they invested more effort in attracting and catering to female gamers? Or are you just tired of the stereotype that girls don’t game and their only presence is in the mother / wife / girlfriend role of male gamers?
One point I’ve seen raised about casual gaming that hardcore gamers rarely talk about: convenience. For a casual gamer, having games on demand whenever they feel like whiling away a few minutes is a very big deal. There are plenty of people who would never even consider springing for a console, much less going through the bother of loading up a game, but who are perfectly content to load up Bejeweled on their PC or Pac-man on their cell phone. The easier it is for them to access games, the more likely they are to play them; that’s why casual PC games and mobile games have been so popular.
In a weird sort of way, it’s the same mentality behind putting a Starbucks on every corner: they’ve learned that buying coffee is often an impulse buy driven by convenience, so they make it as frequently and readily available as possible. Even crossing the street may be too much of an imposition for a consumer, which is why Starbucks locations can be so close together, yet not cannibalize each other’s sales: they are literally serving customers on opposite sides of the street.
Initial console sales - when the hardware is at its most expensive and its library is at its smallest - are always driven by early adopters. That’s always been the case for any new consumer technology and that’s who MS should focus on enticing. Once they’ve built some momentum and got some games out and (hopefully) made the system cheaper, then they can try to expand their market. This marketing campaign that the NYT mentions is just idiotic.
Nintendo’s approach is a bit different: they’ll still be going after early adopters, but they’ll be going after people who are turned off by existing games and/or just looking for something different. Whether they can provide genuinely unique titles or mere “gimmick” games remains to be seen.
October 13th, 2005 at 9:08 am
Just thought I’d make a point about your comment “First of all, women gamers are NOT "the rest of us."”.
This is true, and Microsoft takes the exact same position. They are not targeting you, the hardcore gamer. They are targeting the non-game playing female segment of the population. In fact, in the article, Microsoft does not differentiate between male and female gamers.
-Ryan
October 13th, 2005 at 11:35 am
> what casual gamer is going to shell out that kinda money to play some "free" games?
Remember, this ad campaign is for “wives and girlfriends.” That is, people who have a Xbox in their home (because their significant other bought it), but might not use it. If they find out about the casual games available on the console, maybe they’d start paying more attention to it.
> Perhaps more to the point, what casual gamer would even know about those Xbox Live Arcade games in the first place?
That’s why you ADVERTISE the feature, so that they DO know about the casual games. That’s the entire point of this ad campaign. Microsoft is telling “wives and girlfriends” who have access to a Xbox, but don’t currently use it, that the Xbox has casual games.
> No, to my mind, XLA is a lil' freebie for the hardcore who are already on Xbox Live
Maybe it is now, but maybe Microsoft wants to make it something more? Did you think of that?
There’s no conspiracy here, it’s just advertising as usual.
(Meta: Please, please, can we get larger fonts on these comments? At least as large as the font in the article? Having to turn up the font size every single time I visit the page is a pain in the behind. Thanks.)
October 13th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
I’m not sure I agree with your assessment of the article, Bonnie.
First, Microsoft is not trying to persuade “moms” and “wives” to buy an Xbox360. They’re trying to get them to *accept* the system. This is kind of like having mens’ magazines and a lounge chair outside a women’s dressing room — the idea is that men won’t hate shopping with their wives.
Second, targeting “moms” and “wives” is very deliberate. And singling women out as casual players is largely accurate. Most hardcore gamers are male. Most casual players are women over 35. I’m not making this up — this is concrete data. Since these same women are likely to be mothering or married to males, assuming the vast majority are “moms” and “wives” is neither stereotypical nor largely inaccurate.
I can understand why you feel offended by Microsoft’s musings, but I’m honestly surprised that you can’t recognize that you are in the minority and look past the walls built by years of male-gaming oppression to see Microsoft’s attempt for what it really is: To increase mainstream acceptance of gaming as a form of expression (and profit). You, more than anyone, should want gaming to touch as many lives as possible. At least, I thought you did.
October 13th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
Ferrous:
Or are you just tired of the stereotype that girls don't game and their only presence is in the mother / wife / girlfriend role of male gamers?
Short answer, yup.
Ryan:
Just thought I'd make a point about your comment "First of all, women gamers are NOT "the rest of us."".
You’re totally right on that. That sentence should read “Women are not the rest of us” Thanks!
James:
There's no conspiracy here, it's just advertising as usual.
I’m not talking about a conspiracy, I’m talking about how frustrating the “usual”, when it comes out in something so blatant as advertising, can be. Though you make a good point: this isn’t just a Microsoft thing, it’s a societal thing. Which, of course, doesn’t make it anymore comforting.
Also, to your question about fonts: Someone asked that a few weeks ago, it may have been you, and I got my lovely web designer to up the font size (even though he put up a fuss - silly artists), but I’ll certainly let him know that you’re still finding it too small, and see what he can do.
October 13th, 2005 at 1:55 pm
James: After rereading the NYT article, I think one of us is mistaken about MS’s intent with this marketing campaign. It seems that this ad campaign (A) is for the Xbox 360, not the original Xbox (and thus targets future purchasers, not existing owners) and (B) focuses on the 360’s non-gaming multimedia functionality as selling points. Apart from a brief mention of Kameo and “this is for more than just Madden,” games aren’t brought up at all; and I see no mention of Xbox Live, much less XLA. The premise seems to be: “Let’s pimp all the other things besides games the 360 can do to women who aren’t gamers! Let’s convince people the 360 is good for more than games!”
Which is why I think it’s stupid: nobody even vaguely in their right minds will see the 360 as anything other than a game machine. And as for those vaunted multimedia functions, you can find DVD players with all the same functionality for a lot less than $300. The 360 is first and foremost a game machine - period. If it does other things on top of that, cool - icing on the cake. But wasting marketing dollars trying to persuade non-gamers that its multimedia functionality is a strong selling point is just shooting themselves in the foot, IMHO.
But I suppose a misguided marketing campaign is easier to do than actually, y’know, making games besides Halo 3 and Madden MCMXCVII which might appeal to casual gamers.
October 13th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
At least, I thought you did.
Daniel, let’s play nice :-). I hear what you’re saying, and as I’ve mentioned in posts above, my whole reaction is mostly a knee-jerk response, though, personally, I think there’s a deal of truth in it. I understand that they’re trying to reach more women, and, yes, of course I think that that’s a good thing. Yes, also, I know that I’m in the minority, and that a small number of young female gamers like me shouldn’t negate advertising toward older women. All of which is fine and dandy. BUT, what’s not okay is the attitude that Microsoft (and the NY Times in this piece) takes - which doesn’t recognize the current female gaming culture at all. It’s not, “Let’s reach the women who don’t game,” it’s, “Let’s reach women” - in that they don’t even acknoweldge that there are currently girl gamers. Which is insulting. Second insulting thing is defining women through their men: It’s been mentioned above the fact that they’re aiming for casual women gamers, ones who would only have access to systems because their husbands or kids do. That doesn’t mean you talk about them as “wives and mothers”, it means you talk to them as women, and remind them that their “husbands and sons” have games. Apologies, I’m not normally so feminist-y, but the thinking behind it all just rubs me the wrong way.
Though, Daniel, you do bring up a whole new point, that is that most casual players are women over 35. I’ve never heard that before, but you say there are numbers, and I’m willing to believe you. With that in mind, it doesn’t make Microsoft’s campaign any less over-generalizing and rude, but it does justify their interest in older women. Thanks for mentioning that!
October 13th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
It sounds to me that Microsoft is just trying to shed their big, hulking man-box image here than anything else. It’s worth noting that a lot of your standard male gamers perhaps don’t appreciate the No Girls Allowed image. I’m sure there are a lot of male gamers out there who would just love it if their girlfriend or wife picked up the controller to play alongside them, for any number of reasons (increased tolerance of their gaming habits amongst them). If these male gamers keep seeing the female-friendly marketing enough, maybe they’ll start believing it’ll happen.
So I guess I’m saying that, despite the lip service to casual female players, this might be marketing that is more closely aimed at their currently existing market of males, 17 to 24.
October 13th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
Hmm, so you’re saying that Microsoft is actually trying to attract men with the prospect of women players. I could definitely see that, though it’s not the type of women our society normally considers too alluring - “wives and mothers”. The wife part would make sense for slightly older gamers (”Here’s a system your wife will want to hang out with you and play), but not so much that 17 to 24 market. And I don’t know that any male gamer is so thrilled about the prospect of gaming with his mom. Well, except maybe Scott :-).
October 13th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
Personally, I'm a Nintendo fanboy (eh, fangirl)
Yah, me too. And raising a couple fanboys for the next generation.
But, in a lot of ways, Nintendo is getting left behind, not because they're doing a poor job, but specifically because they don't buy into that hypocritical hardcore stuff.
The thing is, Nintendo continues to profit by every box it sells, as well as on every piece of software. Both in investing the kind of R&D money they did and in selling the console at a loss, Microsoft has lost money on the Games division nearly every quarter they’ve done Xbox business. They sold upwards of 5 million units of Halo2 in the hottest game buying quarter of the year at what must have been about $150M in revenue by its lonesome and still managed to make only $84M in revenue. Microsoft may ‘get’ the hardcore, but they don’t seem to ‘get’ business when it comes to making money off of consoles. And Sony, in investing heavily in the Cell technology, is also going to either have to come out in the pricey range or lose money on every box itself.
I guess what I’m saying is that while Nintendo may not move the units, their business strategy appears to be sound. At least, if the goal of making consoles is to make money.
The 20-something boys who are after Xboxes and PlayStations aren’t going to be enough to sustain development when it costs $20M a pop for a triple-A title (dev + marketing) and when the costs of development make it even less likely we’ll see something generally new. Growing the market is the way to go, even if it means less ’sexy’ hardware.
Hopefully though, all the goodness of the Revolution will win some new fans.
I predict it will. I’m in the industry, and I’m bored to tears by the ‘new’ announcements I see day to day, which are generally rehashes of old games with prettier graphics. Occasionally there will be moments in games that surprise me, but they are merely moments. But I cheered inside when I watched the Revolution teaser. In that way, Nintendo is winning back an old fan, not only reaching for new ones.
October 13th, 2005 at 10:21 pm
I think in the long run Microsoft has been willing to blow so much money because they’re hoping to make a proportionate amount back. They knew they were buying their way into a market where others had worked for years to establish a place, and they did it - but their still paying for it financially. At the moment, Nintendo may be the only one making a solid profit, but I can’t imagine Microsoft plans (or at least hopes) to keep things that way.
As for being excited for the innovation/creative fresh air of the Revolution, it’s great to hear an industry member express interest and relief. We’ve hit such a stagnant point (sequel after sequel), that I can only hope Nintendo’s approach really inspires an artistic change, and doesn’t just get shoved to the side with the excuse of “niche” marketing or “quirkiness”. Hopefully this really is a come-back, both for Nintendo and for creativity.
October 13th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
And I don't know that any male gamer is so thrilled about the prospect of gaming with his mom. Well, except maybe Scott :-).
Me and my mom used to play “Yoshi” on the NES together, and we were pretty much even in terms of wins/losses. And she used to play a mean game of Tetris, too. ^_^
I think games have become too much of a hardcore thing. There was a time when my father would play Metroid II with me, and my mother was hooked on the portable platforming of Super Mario Land. Gaming has lost its casual image. -sj
-sj
October 14th, 2005 at 2:34 am
I don’t mean that this is an attempt to market the 360 as though it will attract or allow players to meet hot chicks — even Axe/Tag-wearing frat types probably wouldn’t fall for that. I just mean that they’re trying to change the X-Box image from something that’s currently testosterone-filled boy’s club fare to something that’s more neutral and perhaps less repellant to huge portions of the population. I suppose I was mostly just reiterating what Daniel Kinney had said above. It’s about increasing mainstream acceptance.
That your reaction to this article was so sour is only evidence, I should think, that these guys aren’t really serious about their claims of mainstream appeal. I imagine they just wanted to — let’s be honest — [i]fool[/i] some literate, but unknowledgeable NYTimes readers.
October 14th, 2005 at 4:32 am
Hey, Bonnie, thanks for this. When the 360 first made its big appearance, I was surprised to hear some of the most offensive, gendered language I’d ever heard, as part of their description of how broad and far-reaching this miracle of a multimedia system would be. Lookout, even girls might play with it! Oooh! And while I certainly agree that Microsoft is really saying, “Look, we’d like to branch out,” their lady-talk was, you know, obnoxious. Then a friend–a hardcore gamer, and female–quietly mentioned to me how annoyed she had become with Xbox 360 propaganda on account of this, you know, this gendered language they kept insisting on using, and I was just absolutely relieved, because till that point I just felt militantly hypersensitive.
So now I am relieved once again, having seen this blog entry, but this time I’m beyond annoyed. I’m actually completely enraged. And it’s probably because I’m seeing this business model and hearing this gendered language again, only this time, it isn’t at an industry event, it’s in the goddamn New York Times. What? Because when you take this language outside an industry event where, yes, yes, we know girls play videogames! and take it to the New York Times, you end up with both casual and potential gamers reading it and absorbing the same “real (’feminine’) girls don’t game; real (’hardcore’) gamers aren’t girls” stereotype and perpetuating that. Yeah, this comment isn’t very well planned–I just wanted to write in and say I really empathize with your reaction to the Times article because, I mean, yeah.
October 14th, 2005 at 8:39 am
“And, as someone interested in the uniqueness of the gaming culture, I can't say I'm too pleased.”
Im so glad someone finally said it, we dont want to be mainstream….we dont want it in a big way. Most of you hardcore gamers are extreme counterculture advocates in many cases.
October 14th, 2005 at 9:11 am
> Also, to your question about fonts: Someone asked that a few weeks ago, it may have been you, and I got my lovely web designer to up the font size (even though he put up a fuss - silly artists), but I'll certainly let him know that you're still finding it too small, and see what he can do.
Thanks, I appreciate that. Laptops have an unfortunate tendency to offer a 15″ screen with a ridiculously huge amount of pixels, like 1280×1024, and, well frankly, you just can’t read it. But at least you *can* bump up the font size on this site… a lot of those web “artists” (you know, the kind who put grey text on a grey background, don’t capitalize any sentences, and generally hate it when people can actually *read* their content) disable the size changing using CSS.
Trying not to sound too bitter… ;)
October 14th, 2005 at 9:22 am
Few replies:
1) Microsoft’s Xbox is a long-term investment, not a short-term investment. They said from the very beginning that they probably weren’t going to make any profit in the first two generations of the machine… you can criticize them if you want, but the Xbox is actually doing better than Microsoft planned when they started it.
Also, I think Microsoft is aiming for an older average age than 17-24… I may be wrong. But one of the earliest PC game series they made for Xbox is the MechWarrior series, and the MechWarrior series is famous for having probably the oldest fanbase of any game in history. (I joined a clan at 22, and I was the youngest person in it by far. Most players were in their 40s.)
Now for my unpopular opinion: I prefer the Xbox because I like to buy American and, at the moment, the Xbox is the only game console that’s made by an American company. I’m proud of that, and I hope it slaughters Sony and Nintendo in the next generation to put us back on top where we were during the Atari years.
Bonnie: The reason there are so many sequels is because they sell. Who here bought Beyond Good and Evil? It’s an excellent game, a cross between an adventure game and a platformer, and yet it barely sold enough to break even, much less make a profit. Who here bought Scaler? Another excellent original platformer game, and another marketplace failure. There are a dozen other examples. What you’re seeing may be unfortunate, but all it is is the free market in action.
October 14th, 2005 at 9:38 am
James: The font sizes for comments have been adjusted accordingly. In the future, please e-mail me at ScottSiegel@teSticleSgo.net with any web-related issues. Also, your e-mail address is never published publicly on the blog, and is only accessible by myself or Bonnie. Including it would allow us to contact you directly about such issues, instead of having to take up comment-space with unrelated tech stuff. Just something to consider. -sj
October 14th, 2005 at 10:48 am
I imagine they just wanted to "” let's be honest "” [i]fool[/i] some literate, but unknowledgeable NYTimes readers.
I totally agree with you. That’s part of the thing that bugs me so much. I’m a lit. student, somewhat involved in a literary community, and I know if this runs in the times, then a large portion of the supposedly intellectual world takes it at point blank and walks away. Gaming needs these people to be interested in us apart from the stereotypes they already have, and pieces like this aren’t helping.
Jenny, you’re my new best friend. No, seriously, I obviously couldn’t
agree with you more.
Im so glad someone finally said it, we dont want to be mainstream"¦.we dont want it in a big way. Most of you hardcore gamers are extreme counterculture advocates in many cases.
Yeah, I feel myself struggle with that a lot. Personally, I want games to be recognized as an art form, and that perhaps take general recognition. But, some part of me is also exclusionary - as a writer, because I can’t stand the idea of losing gaming culture to the norm, as a person, because it’s painful to see something important to you because so mass culture.
I prefer the Xbox because I like to buy American and, at the moment, the Xbox is the only game console that's made by an American company. I'm proud of that, and I hope it slaughters Sony and Nintendo
Ah, we can’t be friends :-)! I have to admit, on a personal level, I definitely disagree with you. But, I also admit, I’m politically quite liberal, and not the kind of person who will ever aim for a product just because it’s made in the U.S. of A. But, too each his own. I mean that sincerely. And as someone interested in the mentality and purchasing power of American gamers, I find your approach fascinating :-).
As for making sequels because they sell, I think the answer is yes and no. I’d recommend a recent Escapist article, “Death to the Games Industry, Long Live Games”. Free markets are one thing, but advertising has a lot to do with it, and when publishers only put big bucks into advertising sequels (i.e. game their sure will sell) it’s make the whole creative atmosphere stagnant. Again, a question of whether big business give enough of a damn to take a risk on art.
October 14th, 2005 at 11:33 am
“at the moment, the Xbox is the only game console that's made by an American company”
It’s assembled in Mexico and Hungary, with most components made in Pacific rim nations like Singapore. YOU LOSE AT CAPITALISM.
October 14th, 2005 at 11:34 am
because it's painful to see something important to you [become] so mass culture
I hear you. On the other hand, it seems like growing the market substantially makes more room for niche games. I actually think something like Beyond Good and Evil would have found a bigger market if we actually were able to reach the same size market (in numbers, not in dollars) that movies do. It was a high quality game that got good word-of-mouth. But when only a few of the people who you know (outside of work, in my case) own consoles, that word-of-mouth doesn’t go all that far.
October 14th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
>It's assembled in Mexico and Hungary, with most components made in Pacific rim nations like Singapore. YOU LOSE AT CAPITALISM.
I never said it was built in the US. I own a Chrysler car that was built in Mexico, also. I said it was built by a US company.
Look at it this way: Say Microsoft has 5,000 employees in the US and 50 in Japan. Let’s say that Sony has 50 employees in the US and 5,000 in Japan. Given that the manufactoring costs will go to Mexico/Korea/Taiwan/where ever, which console purchase will provide more capital to American companies? Even if the consider payroll *alone*, Microsoft is the clear winner.
But also, Japan isn’t anything to worry about. What I worry about more is how the US, full of Wal-Mart shoppers who’ll buy the cheapest product available regardless of quality, is basically funding China’s development and eventual rise to *the* world superpower. When China’s there in thirty years, at least I can look back and say, “I did what I could do to support my homeland.”
Of course, regardless of how I feel about politics, or why I do it, “buying American” is a Republican/Conservative term and therefore on the Internet I’m one of “them.” Because it’s a lot easier to classify people into tight little groups than to consider, hey, maybe I’m *for* unions and environmentalism.
October 15th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
Brett, I hear what you’re saying, and I think the movie comparison is a good one. Still, the switchover is a delicate time. It’s hard to tell whether constructive niche markets will develop within the expanding industry, or whether the whole of gaming will lose its individual flavor to the norm…
James, no one’s calling you “one of them” - at least not me. Party lines are counter-productive, and I have no doubt that you as an individual have complicated views and cannot be pigeon-holed due to any particular belief. With that said, your argument does confuse me a little. You seem to be against that Walmart approach, but Walmart in many ways defines the American economy, even America itself, and to go against the economics of one and not the other seems contradictory. Also, you say you’re doing your part for your country, as opposed to all those Americans who are helped China become a superpower. What’s wrong with China becoming a superpower? I know, a lot of Americans go up in arms because they’re “communist” - but trust me, that “communism” is as capitalist as they come.
October 17th, 2005 at 11:02 am
As long as they continue to censor their own people, and continue to attempt to firewall their entire nation from the truth on the Internet, they’re “communism” in the negative sense, regardless of how people there buy their groceries.
The point of capitalism is that the *best* product succeeds, not the cheapest. Sometimes it works; like with Apple’s iPod. Sometimes, it doesn’t; like with pretty much everything sold at Wal-Mart.
October 17th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
I hear what you’re saying about censhorship, but that doesn’t make them communist, it makes them fascist, at least in a sense. And when you say “best” product, you get at the heart of the issue: what defines best? It’s not just quality, otherwise we’d be looking at a whole different market economy. Price is a major factor in a capitalist society of determining “goodness”. Anyways, this is probably not the right place for a debate over politics/economics, so I for one am willing to shake hands :-).
April 12th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Great article. I am just sad I dont know how to reply properly, though, since I want to show my appreciation like many other.